disease as a weapon?

 

But, she also pointed out that the picture represented more then just sharing. It also meant that without their generosity, the settler's would of starved quicker than we could say - thanksgiving!

 

Funny how some things really stick in the mind, when something jars the ol' memory.

We agree on that. Lets say that in various mesoamerican places density might have reached 100/km2 while on average in modern days US, Can, Bra and Arg it must have been around or lower than 0.1/km2.
 

I'm not contesting that either. I'm simply saying that the picture changes whether you talk in absolute terms or relative ones. For instance had the mapuches or the sioux suffered in absolute terms losses similar to the Aztecs they would have totally disappeared as none of the two nomadic groups had more than a million persons. Then the question is what is worst? killing 1 millions people from a group counting 10 millions or 100 from a group counting 101?
 

This goes against your previous claim that there was more of a genocide in the US then elsewhere. If the US's percentile of native genetics is low couldn't we simply assume that rather than a special mentality there were special circumstances. First of all they were more fragile (Aztecs weren't as dependent as the Sioux were toward one single and fragile source of income such as the Buffalos). Second they were less numerous. Third their resistance was less successful (Mapuches resisted for centuries while the Sioux were destroyed in a couple of decades). Fourth  the terrain exposed them more (nowhere to hide in the great plaines).
 

 

That is rather just another bold claim among thousands, is it not  Brian? Of course, my intent is not to argue with you about the surrounding area suffering from one natural epidemic or another, pre or post invasion! My intent is too first make you think much harder about such a statement, before accepting it as the unvarnished gospel truth, by merely pointing out only a few things too consider, in which... the first of many, but not only conclusive too these: 1.) The severe infrastructural neglect Iraqi's suffered under Saddam's several decade reign. 2.) Then think about Saddam's many ambitions in his surrounding area. 3.) And finally the end result of said ambitions, by the imposition of a 13 year long UN sanction imposed on his regime, which certainly didn't help their heavily screwed up infrastructural probelms very much, as far a Saddam was concerned, in maintaining the stability of his regime. Therefore... the only thing that saved his regime from overthrow til 2003, was the creation of the oil for food bribe scandal, which is still quietly rocking quite a few high ranking members in the UN, as well as the UN itself, for over the past five years now!

 

 My point in this is that... this all had it's internal roots in Iraq, way before the first conspiracy theory among thousands, ever popped up in the western mind in regards to a  US connection when... Mr. Rumsfeld met with Saddam in the early to mid eighties! Perhaps more later. Now is the time for my coffee fix.

 

My regards to you...

 

Well, Colombian produce great coffee. However, coffee is not an South American produce but Ethiopian. You better switch to Mate Herb if you want to drink the flavour of South America. After all 40 million Argentineans that preffer mate daily can't be wrong...

 

However, if you really want to try something good, try coca tea.. Well, I forgot it maybe forbidden in the U.S.

Vlad the Impaler sent lepers and plague victims to the Turkish camps to infect the invading army. All they had to do was bring Vlad the turban of a dead Turk and they would receive a bag of gold