Good morning Harry

Andrea lovely, I told that bottle
away

Morning, Kid, JJ!

It was a nice mini-sabbatical -- a lot of reading and writing, perfect
weather. It is refreshing to take some time away from the 'normal' daily
stream of stuff that demands every moment's attention, refreshing and
productive.

I come back always wondering whether I am living my life correctly.
Alex's Rumi poems have the same effect on me.

Good morning, Andrea!

He isn't talking to me, too

Lawry...so nice that you are able to have that in your life...yes I know
what you are talking about with the words she post...

I adore Rumi, too.
It's so good to read something like that, it's like a heart lift

Ron, Hiker, very pointed points....

It is interesting how soldiers can go into suicidal situations, and only
ask for the admiration of the folks back home.

Mogadishu, another fascinating example of hubris and demonization of the
enemy.

Oceans

Is it not in a way the same that happens in Iraq now, just on a far
larger scale?

I think in some ways the parallels are there.

American 'leaders' are so desperate to avoid 'losing' that they will
continue policies that slaughter our own soldiers before they will admit
it. Custer simply got whipped. Compared to Iraq, not many Americans
died. (Of course, this ignores the greater damage, the harm done to the
Sioux and the Iraqis by our presence.)

We won't be defeated as neatly in Iraq, our massive advantage in
firepower virtually assures that. I think it will be more like Viet Nam.
We can expect in the coming months that US troops in Iraq will take a
pounding, while the generals whine about not having enough men, and the
politicians strut about saying they are damned if they will preside over
defeat.

Iraq is nothing but ego, now.

Ego seems to be a BIG American thing

Alas, history is replete with ego, and not just American history. But
History also has genuine heroes: thoughtful, careful, knowledgeable
leaders who put the interests of people ahead of their own.

How in the hell did a thread on the Battle of the Little Bighorn get
hijacked to be about Iraq. If you want an Iraq thread there are
several, post your comments there. Most of what you have to say has
already been posted a thousand times.

As for Custer he was an idiot that did not follow orders. He was trying
parley a successful career against the Indians into a run for the
presidency. I live in Rapid City, South Dakota and I have been to the
Little Bighorn Battle Field several times. Sitting Bull did not single
out Custer for annilation. Custer made several huge mistakes, He left
his heavy weapons, cannons and Gatling Guns behind. He did not believe
what his scouts told him. He split his forces and led a part of it into
the valley and attacked the Indian Camp. The Indians had always fled
before when attacked and he did not belileve they would turn and fight.
He was grossly outnumbered and seriously out gunned. The brunt of the
indian defense was against the force attacking the camp. The remainder
of his force was several mile away and were able to get out of the
valley and secure some high ground which they were able to defend. By
the time that Custer was headed out of the valley his troops were
literally running for their lives. The route they took was more gentle
terrain and allowed for a better chance of escape, he didn't know that
he had already been outflanked by a large number of warriors.

I'm not sure who you are addressing this to, Gardenforge, but I started
the thread and am quite happy to see people explore parallels between
Little Big Horn and Iraq or the Alamo, or whatever sparks their
imagination.

Forge, thanks for the info on Custer's actions. Can you specualte a bit
about what lay behind this set of mistakes? E.g. What led him to leave
behind his heavier weaponry? To split his forces, etc? Were these
actions the result of his thinking, or beliefs?

Forge, do you know if the memorial site at Little Big Horn includes
memorials to the Sioux who did there, or, I guess the village that was
also part of the attack?

I haven't see an Iraq thread for a while: maybe I'll start one up.

Regards,
Oceans

frist of all you have to have the money and it has to be blue Bush has
both and in the end he will win iam just in hopes that it turns out to
the good for all man kind but i fear that it will not if he dosent make
mistakes parallel to hitler we are all in trouble as awhole

Custer left behing his heavy weapons because they were slowing him down.
He wanted to get to the indians and wipe them out before General Terry
who was approaching from the North did. It is speculated that Custer
wanted to use the victory over the indians as a stepping stone to the
White House. As far as I know there is no memorial to the indians at
the battlefield. They do reenactments of the battle, I believe it's
every year. The Indians had no written records so there is no accurate
count of their casualties. The indians usually mutilated their victims
and they did so with the soldiers killed at the Little Bighorn, but
Custer was not mutilated by them. In addition to his wounds, he was
only cut a couple times and they stuck awls into his ears to that in the
next life his ears would be open to listen to the plight of the Native
Americans.

The following link will give you some interesting reading on the Battle
of the Little Bighorn and also on the events that preceeded it and
contributed to the hostilities.

http://www.curtis-collection.com/tribe%20data/custer.html

IRon, The battle of the Alamo was not lost by the US nor doomed from the
start. First the battle was fought by Texans for the independence of
Texas from Mexico. Second it was held by a small contingent of forces
with the expectation that there would be additional troops brought to
bear in the battle by Sam Houston. Houston determined that the main
battle for the independence of Texas was not to be at the Alamo however
and decided not to send the support needed for success at the Alamo. The
defenders had some expectation that they would have support they needed.

One might wonder if Sam Houston had decided differently whether the
battle might have turned out much worse for the Texans. For instance,
the eventual victory for Texas at the Battle of San Jacinto had only a
very few lost lives for the Texas side compared to a complete loss for
Santa Anna's Mexican army.

If the Sam Houston had come to Travis's rescue at the Alamo there might
have been thousands of Texan lives lost instead of the 169 or so that
perished there. Even though Texas might have won the battle and proved
their independence earlier, many more lives may have been lost overall.
So there were different possibilities and decisions to be made. Doom
from the start was not really in it.

I seem to recall some discussion about inferior weapons in the hands of
Custer's soldiers. Perhaps the fault may be in some other place than
ordinarily claimed. Some examples are, suppliers of superior weapons to
the Indians, lack of intelligence on the part of the military (not
knowing about repeating rifles in the hands of Indians), lack of
adequate supplies to Custer (inferior weapons again). Obviously he
didn't know the size of the force he was against. Clearly the country's
Indian policies had created a more and more difficult problem in dealing
with the Indians. There was some blame on both sides I expect, not
dealing squarely with one another.

Custer went ahead and attacked 2 days early rather than wait on Gen.
Terry, and Gen. Crook. It was Crook who had the Gatling guns and
artillery! Custer was an ego-maniac who underestimated the size of the
Sioux party and wanted all the credit for the victory himself. He was a
fool, and his whole career was was that of an ego-maniac. He had fallen
out of favor for his command in Wash. and was eager to prove them wrong.
According to Indian reports, which most of History do not take in as
accurate, his white hair stood out as he stood on a hill watching the
battle. Sitting Bull saw this and personally led the group that singled
him out and annihilated him! The only survivors came from the group down
by the river, but there were not many!
There are two histories of this battle, one wrote by those who were not
there, and another wrote by eyewitness accounts from Indians, who
participated in the attack. I prefer to believe these, and the Army had
no survivors anywhere near to Custer!
The show I watched was battlefield detectives. It discounted many of the
Armies version of the history of the battle, and reported many of
Custer's men ran for their life, rather than stand fighting. It track
their progress from shell casings they dug up. Shell casings of the type
only the 7th Calvary were using that lay in a trail going away from the
battlefield as the Sioux chased them down and killed them.
Yes, Philosopher, they also spoke of the inferior weapons that the
Calvary had. They were a drop block model that had a slow rate of fire.
It was these rounds,(casings) that they were finding to show the route
of Custer's men. They also used the burial detail's reports of where
they found the bodies many of which were shot in the back as they ran,
and some found 200yds from the main group!