Go Bottom Go Bottom

A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144223

First off, I do NOT want this thread to turn into a "hostile" subject, if it does I will nuke it.

I only post this, as the title suggest, to provoke a meaningfull (albeit off topic) discussion on where 'we' went wrong.

Having set the ground rules, I want to point out some interesting twists in the immigration laws of another country which I came across in doing some research recently.

Bear in mind, these are REAL terms in another countries laws;

- There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

- There will be no special ballots (other languages etc.) during elections.

- All Government business will be conducted in the 'official' language, no bilingual staff or paperwork will be made available.

- Foreigners will not have the right to vote no matter how long they reside in the country, no passport, no vote, period.

- Foreigners are forbidden from running for election or holding any public office.

- Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers, no welfare, no food stamps, no health care or any other Government assistance programs are open to non-citizens.

-Foreigners can invest in the country, but it must be in an amount at least equivalent to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

- Foreigners will be permitted to buy land, but, not waterfront property, only citizens naturally born in the country will permitted to own it.

- Foreigners may not publicly protest, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing the Government or its policies. Violations will result in deportation.

- If you enter the country illegally, you will be subject to arrest and following completion of your sentence, deported.

Now, would you believe these are the laws of Mexico?

It certainly is food for thought now isn't it?

Best of luck.



Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5275 South Carolina
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144227

It amazes me the lack of thought that is given to this issue. I received a video a few days ago which to me helps understand the scope of this. Have no idea who the guy is but believe his numbers to be correct. Notice he is not putting down anyone, only pointing out the obvious, we must help people prosper where they are as we are not able to hold the whole world. I think the reason people get upset about this issue in the United States is mainly due to our own elected people.

I totally agreee with Murf, we should be albe to discuss this in a civil tone with concern for our own country and others also. kt ....


Link:   Video

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144228

Murf,

The globalists in D.C. have no interest in protecting the sovereignty of the U.S. Their only goal is to open additional markets for those corporations who continue to beat down their doors.

It's an old problem, dating back to the days of Millard Fillmore, and even Thomas Jefferson.

In 1853, Millard Fillmore sent Commodore Perry to Japan, in an effort to secure a trade agreement with the people of Japan. Our ships were not welcome there. Finally, after threats of violence and even a few suggestive hints contained in a letter from President Fillmore, the Japanese surrendered to our demands.

I want to know why the U.S. taxpayer got stuck footing the bill for sending U.S. naval forces to Japan, for the purpose of expanding personal profits to those who would benefit from this trade agreement.

Well, the problem has never gone away. Today, the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt (The Big Stick) is roaming the world's oceans, securing profits for those U.S. corporations who operate overseas......and the U.S. taxpayer is still footing the bill.

There are those in D.C. who have no idea of meaning behind the terms sovereignty, borders, or jurisdiction. And then there are the millions of American people who still haven't sat down to ask themselves, "Does the U.S. really have any FOREIGN INTERESTS?"

There are people with foreign interests, but this group of people is very small. At no time should the U.S. military be involved with opening doors to new markets for them.

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
SG8NUC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 579 g
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144229

The way to measure a country is to count how many people want to get in, and how many people want to get out.

This was said by someone famous, WHO? ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Billy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 975 Southeast Oklahoma
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144230

Murf, I don't know where or more importantly when we as a Nation went wrong. After all, the US was built by immigrants with a desire for a better life. They endured a tremendous amount of hardship to make this Nation what it is today. BUT there comes a time that changes need to be made and I'm afraid that time has past. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144232

SG8NUC,

Way back when, there were more people who wanted to enter Rome than there were people willing to leave.

They got in. Rome came to an end shortly thereafter.

A whole lot of our problems have been experienced by nations that were around long before us. If only we'd study history in this country, most of our serious problems could be avoided.

Joel

....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
yooperpete
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1413 Northern Michigan
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144233

I once read a long and dry book called "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". It has been said, History repeats itself! ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5275 South Carolina
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-07-31          144234

It is not just the number of people coming it, it is also the attitude has changed. Years ago they wanted to be US Citizens. Now many today want to waive their old flag and only take from the US for their old country or even claim the land here belongs to another country.

I posted it under picture which may not have been the vest place to but click on the video in my first post, if you want to understand the MATH to the influx. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144247

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

Joel ....


Link:   Jefferson Quotes

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144252

Joel, while much of my learning (at Uncle Sam's expense) has long since faded from my mind, I do recall clearly many of the lectures (and debates that followed) on military ethics and politics.

First and foremost was the analogy that politics is to great extent a lot like agriculture, you plant a seed, let it grow, and reap the harvest. Unfortunately some of the seeds are weeds not crops, and if not removed early, will spoil the entire harvest. It is hard work, and there is little to show for it when finished, but later on, the harvest will be abundant and unspoiled.

So goes the process of projecting military & political will around the world. The costs of ignorance can be very high.

Think of the difference if America had done things differently in Cuba or the Middle East way back when.

Good or bad, action or inaction, there will always be consequences in the future.

I was in Grenada in the fall of 1983, as a result of that operation, Grenada stayed a free country and did not become a Communist regime, and in fact experienced an (impressive) average of economic growth of 5.5% for the period from 1986 to 1991 and as of the early 1990's has even become a regional banking center. Since the invasion, and even with this unprecedented growth, inflation has stayed under 3%.

I doubt many Western countries, let alone Communist countries, could boast statistics like that.

Unfortunately no matter what happens some will be displeased.

As for military spending on frivolous measures, I suspect that in the greater scheme of things, the amount spent amounts to mere fractions of a single percentage of the overall budget. Remember the now-infamous $640 toilet seat? I was in Washington in the spring of 2003 and the big fuss in the news at the time was a (then) recently released GAO report that said the Pentagon couldn't account for more than $1 TRILLION in spending, and had "lost track of" 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command-launch units.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144255

Murf,

While you were in Grenada, I was in Germany. In fact, I couldn't get back home to the U.S., due to the fact that all of Uncle Sam's military aircraft were being used to ship home dead Marines, from Beirut.

I spent 16 years in a military uniform, (Army and Army Reserves, under four different U.S. presidents) believing that I was training to defend my nation from a future attack. Boy.....was I ever fooled. I was very naive in my younger days.

The U.S. hasn't been attacked since the War of 1812........and that was the last legitimate war the U.S. was involved with. Every war since has been fought for reasons wholly unrelated to our freedoms, security, or well-being.

There are those who take issue with my stance. Most people generally make an exception for WWII, in which the Japanese bombed U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor. History, however, describes a situation in which the U.S. never should have been in Hawaii in the first place, as it wasn't ours to take.......but we took it anyway, against the objections from their Queen.

President Grover Cleveland spoke out against the military overthrow of the Hawaiian government, which took place in 1893. Cleveland thought it very wrong of us to take a nation away from its people, simply because our sugar growers wanted the land for themselves.

Grover Cleveland lost his next election. With Cleveland out the way, Congress decided to keep Hawaii.

Of course, at the same time, we were working to take the Philippines, as well. As we moved further and further into the Pacific, and further and further away from home, our military adventures began to worry the people of other nations........in particular, the Japanese.

After studying the history of our military adventures, I've come to the firm conclusion that our government is in the business of making enemies for us to fight. Vietnam is a good example of this. Korea, as well.

We shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves being invaded by foreigners. It's nothing more than a taste of our own medicine.

Much more to come, if you're interested.

Have a great day, my friend. It's nice to know you.

Joel
U.S. Army & Army Reserves 1978-1994

(No, I didn't retire. I don't believe my fellow citizens owe me a dime for my time, or service.) ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kangaroo31
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 120 Orange County, NY
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2007-08-01          144256

Military should be last choice, if economic way still available. Grenada is a special tiny example generally. Without American Capital support, I don't think those things will ever happen. As I known, basicly, if HomeDepot can get items <17% than sales price, walmart even lower, war is too expensive. :-) ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144258

Kangaroo31,

No nation, in the entire history of the world, has ever gotten rich by fighting wars. War is an expense that can never be recovered. Napoleon, if he was still alive, might be able to shed some light on this issue.

In an effort to finance his war against the world, Napoleon was forced to sell the Louisiana Territory to the U.S. He needed the money. People who need money often sell things they wouldn't otherwise sell.

France lost its ass fighting wars. Rome did too. Germany didn't get rich while building up the Third Reich. The U.S.S.R. no longer exists. The future of the U.S. is not in question. The only question remaining, pertaining to our own demise, is when it might happen.

Our nation was put on a proper foundation by our Founders. One cannot begin to build a nation without a foundation to put it on. And when once that foundation begins to crumble, the entire nation falls with it.

It's high time we begin shoring up the foundation our nation was built upon. If we don't, nothing can save her.

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kangaroo31
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 120 Orange County, NY
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster

2007-08-01          144260

U.S.S.R is exception here, it lost its ass because of the "System". :-) Agree on we stand on a very good fundation that created in 1776. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144265

Joel, you make some very interesting points, I hadn't thought of Hawaii the way you presented it.

IMHO, however, the issue of how America came to be in Hawaii likely wouldn't have changed the Japanese attack one iota. Japan was bent on controlling a large area, Hawaii was within that area, and even if it was still a sovereign nation, and the US fleet was there laying at anchor in a 'foreign port' they still would have been hit.

Your point about Hawaii, that "...it wasn't ours to take..." is rather interesting. Couldn't basically the same thing be said about most places. The Indians sure didn't want the first white people that landed in North America. In fact I think "subjugation" would be the right word here too.

However, political evolution, from within or without it's borders is inevitable. How it's done, and the result is the only part open to change, be it by military action, political change, revolution, or just the almighty buck, change will happen.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144266

Murf,

I wish I could tell you just how much respect our Founders had for the Swiss model of non-intervention in foreign affairs, as well as a strong Swiss national defense.

Our Founders thought so highly of the Swiss model, that they adopted it for the U.S.....with few exceptions. Even the militia established by our Founders was based largely on the Swiss example.

The Swiss model was highly cherished by men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. In fact, the very first treaty signed by the Continental Congress was the Law of Nations, written the famous a Swiss political scientist....Vattel.

How many wars have the Swiss taken part in? How many lives have they lost due to war casualties? How many military widows are there in Switzerland? How many of their soldiers suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome? How much money do the Swiss spend on their military veterans, veterans hospitals, agent orange exposure, military funerals, and military retirement benefits? The answer to all of these questions is the same.......ALMOST ZERO.

Now.....how many enemies do the Swiss have? Why haven't the Swiss been attacked by Al-Queda? Why no terrorist attacks against Swiss foreign interests?

Well.....the Swiss have no enemies, because they aren't in the business of making any. They mind their own damned business. In doing so, they've managed not to piss anybody off.

The Swiss haven't been attacked by terrorists, because the terrorists have no complaint against the Swiss. The Swiss don't have soldiers in the middle east. The Swiss don't offer bribes to middle east leaders, under the guise of foreign aid. And the Swiss don't impose sanctions against those who don't allow women to vote.......the list goes on and on and on.

What goes on outside of Swiss borders is none of their business.......and they keep their mouths shut about ALL OF IT.

We Americans......we have a very difficult time putting the shoe on the other foot. We can't imagine what we would do if the Chinese decided to build an air base in the U.S., for the purpose of "protecting Chinese national interests abroad". LIKE HELL, I say. I'd be killing Chinese every day, and I'd feed them to my dog. But, when it comes to placing U.S. troops on foreign soil, most Americans can't help but applaud those heroes in D.C. who "Care" so much about the people of the world. PHOOEY! They have their own governments. They have their own problems. Some problems aren't ours to take care of, and frankly, the whole world wishes like hell we'd learn this important lesson.

Now......as to Japan.

Japan once had no military at all. The most powerful weapon in Japan was the sword, carried by the Shogun. That is, not until Commodore Perry showed up, in 1853. With ship cannons blazing, Perry demanded that the Japanese sign a trade agreement with the U.S. Fearing for their lives, the Japanese finally agreed to allow foreign trade with the U.S.

Immediately thereafter, the people of Japan began a political revolution. They now feared the modern weapons displayed by the Americans. They knew that the simple sword would no longer protect them against an invasion.

The people of Japan ended the position of the Shogun, opting instead for a military government which would have the power to protect them from any further American or British aggression.

This is where everything went wrong. A strong army needs weapons, tanks, trucks, ammunition and food. These weapons require rubber, copper, iron, and other raw materials. And the huge amount of food needed to feed a large military force must be grown somewhere.

The Japanese had very little land. They had few raw materials. They had none of the things they needed to build and sustain a military force large enough to protect the home islands from the powerful American Navy. But they were running out of time.

The U.S. was on the march across the Pacific. First it was Hawaii, then the Philippines. We were getting closer to Japan with each passing day. The Japanese didn't have time to wait. Since we had already taken Hawaii by force, and in the process of subduing the people of the Philippines, the people of Japan were quite certain they already knew where we were headed next.

Little thought is given as to why the Japanese attacked us on the morning of December 7, 1941. Most Americans just chalk things up as being the actions of yet another evil empire. Hardly! In all honesty, we had it coming.

Now...if we examine the Swiss once again, we'll see that they have nothing resembling our U.S.S. Arizona Memorial. They have no Pearl Harbor. They have no soldiers buried on some island in the Pacific, and they have no money going to some evil dictator in the middle east, who might someday target them with the weapons purchased with that Swiss money.

Ah yes......we've forgotten nearly everything our Founders tried to tell us. We just can't help but butt into every little problem that arises in the world. We can't help but make enemies for ourselves......it's our hobby. We enjoy it.

Enough for now......

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144267

Just some food for thought here.......

Enjoy.

Joel

Against Standing Armies
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

....


Link:   The Military and the Militia

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
SG8NUC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 579 g
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144268

If I have my history correct, Rome, not the empire lasted for right at 1,000 years. One might think that we have 800 years left. Most of the countries that you mentioned in your post relied on other countries for back up and support as a big part of their Strategies. Like Germany and Italy. Wonder if Germany would make that choice now. France has always been on the loosing end until their marginal support of our revolution. Someone always had to bail them out. England and America have waged war from the start they are still in business. We pick winners for our support countries, Canada, England, and the down under crowd. Hopefully this will help with our success.
The U.S. has alway been bullies in the gobial arena I dont see that changing any time soon. I would love to see us return to the foundation laid down by our founding fathers, I dont see that changing anytime soon. You are correct we have lost our way. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5275 South Carolina
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144269

The news report was of a lady killed in a big city while her neighbors look out their window just knowing someone else would help her. No one did. She was killed as good honest people did nothing. This is not made up but a very much studied true story from a major US City. If that lady was my mother, wife or children I would have call for damnation on those who were too good to gotten envolved and you know what, so would you ...

...I only read part of the how great the Swiss are and had to stop as I almost got sick…

The Swiss are FAR from perfect and the Japanese from always being peaceful people. The Swiss have had many cases of bribery, money laundering and such. Even in the recent years. You can kill with more than the gun or the sword. Yes a sword can be a very dangerous weapon and yes if that is the most modern weapon you have to use, then that is the one you use. All countries have imported weapons if they can improve their own military powers, regardless of what they are called.

God Bless our leadership who does not care what a person or a country thinks and is willing to bomb, shoot or kill who ever they honestly believe is a threat to this country. I will tell you I do not respect any person or county who has no backbone. Even this dummy knows you do not spend your military supplies on none threats. So why would Terrorist waste them on such a country. The fact they have not attack the Swiss (at least that you know of) does not prove how they view them. There are many countries they have not attack I doubt they think of as friend.

…this country is not the evil empire some try to paint us as being. There has never and I mean never been a county who has done so much for so many in this world. We fund more relief to more parts of this world than any other country has or does. That is why God still does blesses us in his bounty as we are not hordes, but do share and do so greatly and with a loving heart.

Now, I am gone from this thread. I respect each of you here and have gain insight from each of you. I rather keep that respect by leaving this thread. Murf, nuke me as you need to on this. If my comments here are hostile please feel free to delete any and all of them. kt
....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Billy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 975 Southeast Oklahoma
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144270

Ken, don't jump off the boat just yet, I agree with you, Murf ain't gonna nuke you cause you said what you believed and you were civil about it. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6898 Waterville New York
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144274


I wonder if there was a winner in Vietnam it would have made a difference? Yes I said if there was a winner! There is no winner in a fight or war.

Problem is some people that take advantage of others, been a problem since there was two people, more just leaves more potential for a problem.

Education does help to stop problems but not all can be educated or want to be. Just because you impose laws doesn't mean they will be obeyed as some will always ignore them. Doesn't mean they are that bad of a person but if they bother(what is a aggrivation) or hurt others then they are wrong. After all how long ago were the slaves freed? Look at the people that still have animosity towards blacks as well as that some blacks are still holding people hostage to someones fore fathers action on color only.

The US has always tried to enhance freedom and democracy and it does work under the right conditions. The weak in the world will always need help, country, state, nationality makes little difference. France has been mentioned in earlier posts but there is more, even many of the germans when the counrty was growing under hitler all was well till he turned on his fighting machine.

I don't think we can help all the people where are soldiers are fighting now as it not only has the different groups of people that reside there fighting but they have the terrorists. They are a problem as all people that aren't part of their group should be dead acording to them.
I can only say when some one thinks like that the world as a whole would be better without them. They have been here before and they will return if they aren't preoccupied some where else. I don't like to see any lives wasted on them but I really hate to see civilians innicently killed so lets keep our fighting machine that is trained and paid to fight with them.
I hope everyone gets to open their eyes everyday to see and be the most that they can be as life is to short to sit and worry about if they can make it through the day because of some one elses ignorance.

Tractors any one! ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144275

KThompson,

Like Billy, I hope your words remain on this board. It's good to have these discussions, and I welcome your opinions on all matters.

In regard to your comments about the people who watch, as their neighbors are raped and murdered, I couldn't agree with you more. Those people who watch, and do nothing, are not Americans. They are not to be associated with, and I do not want them as my neighbors.

That said, there is a limit to the amount of help you and I are allowed to provide. So long as the people being attacked reside within our respective jurisdictions - we have not only a right to help them, but a duty to do so.

Those lawmakers in this country who have passed the laws that take away our right to self-defense are also enemies of the State. Fearing that they might be arrested for taking matters into their own hands, many people now watch out the window as their neighbors are raped and killed. In some of these cases.....in fact many.......the laws are to blame. Good people are no longer allowed to do what's right, for fear of legal retribution.....and that can only come about because of bad laws.

I have something here to share with you. It comes from The Law of Nations......the first treaty our Founders signed into law.

Please consider the following. As you read this, please keep in mind that we're discussing the limits imposed upon us by the laws of jurisdiction.

__________________________

§ 7. But not by force.
But, though a nation be obliged to promote, as far as lies in its power, the perfection of others, it is not entitled forcibly to obtrude these good offices on them. Such an attempt would be a violation of their natural liberty. In order to compel any one to receive a kindness, we must have an authority over him; but nations are absolutely free and independent (Prelim. § 4). Those ambitious Europeans who atlacked the American nations, and subjected them to their greedy dominion, in order, as they pretended, to civilize them, and cause them to be instructed in the true religion, — those usurpers, I say, grounded themselves on a pretext equally unjust and ridiculous. It is strange to hear the learned and judicious Grotius assert that a sovereign may justly take up arms to chastise nations which are guilty of enormous transgressions of the law of nature, which treat their parents with inhumanity like the Sogdians, which eat human flesh as the ancient Gauls, &c.7(91) What led him into this error, was, his attributing to every independent man, and of course to every sovereign, an odd kind of right to punish faults which involve an enormous violation of the laws of nature, though they do not affect either his rights or his safety. But we have shown (Book I. § 169) that men derive the right of punishment solely from their right to provide for their own safety; and consequently they cannot claim it except against those by whom they have been injured. Could it escape Grotius, that, notwithstanding all the precautions added by him in the following paragraphs, his opinion opens a door to all the ravages of enthusiasm and fanaticism, and furnishes ambition with numberless pretexts? Mohammed and his successors have desolated and subdued Asia, to avenge the indignity done to the unity of the Godhead; all whom they termed associators or idolaters fell victims to their devout fury.

_______________________________

We have a perfect right to defend those who are being attacked, so long as we can prove that the offense is within our jurisdiction to take action. If not, by law, we must not interfere.

Respectfully,

Joel ....


Link:   The Law of Nations -- Book 2 ,Chapter 1, para 7

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
AnnBrush
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 463 Troy OH
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-01          144276

I listen to all of the anti-immigrant vitriol with amusement. 1) We talk about illegal aliens but don't know who or where they are - the reason for that is that when we find them we send them home or enter them into long judicial processes no one can bear - no wonder they are all underground - its the practical result of our complex laws and our inability to enforce them.

2) I became a citizen of the US not because I am deeply in love with the US but because I have long ago discovered that life is about having the correct paperwork, it was costing me a fortune not to be a citizen, and the bureaucracy was unbelievable - my solution - become a citizen it has to be easier / cheaper than dealing with INS. People talk about deporting folk well the long and the short of it is that INS (congress) has made it impossible to know what to do to get that done. I once received a letter from INS saying that since they did not know who I was, my recent application had been denied! I had written to them, clearly providing identification as to who I was, to inform them (as required by law) that I had moved and my new address was such and such - application denied indeed, I was not applying for anything, I was informing them that I had moved. Who are these monkeys - they couldn't spot an 8 foot tall illegal albino bald Caucasian in a tribe of sun tanned pigmys sitting on a basketball arena - INS is a joke.

3) Governments don't get to dictate what languages people speak - its been tried a million times - the people dictate what language government speaks - all this nonsense about forcing people to speak English fails to take into account that the folk for whom this is a problem don't speak English as a result governments have to speak Spanish or whatever if they wish to communicate with the public. Just because the majority of us US folk say those who are non-English people should learn English does not mean it will happen. US business has long ago learned that if you want to engage someone you have to speak THEIR language. If they are getting along just fine speaking Spanish why would they ever learn English - no need. Its the equivalent of making a public service announcement in Chinese - no one will hear you. If you want to communicate with these folk you need to speak their language. Plus in communities where they have elected officials in office they they have the right (check the constitution for the 1st amendment) to petition government - if the petition is for government to speak Spanish to them then so be it - we the people have spoken.

The problem with most of the current immigration chatter is that it does not address the real practical situation on the ground so we end up making laws for a situation that does not actually exist or cant be enforced as intended. I hear words like "amnesty" pop up all the time "We cant give them amnesty etc etc!" heck we ALREADY gave them amnesty - that is water under the bridge, they are here, right on your doorstep picking your fruit and putting milk in your fridge everyday. They are not going anywhere - we can't round them up because we don't know who they are and we don't know who they are because when we do we round them up - and you only get to do that once - they wizened up to that and don't talk to government anymore. You can't force businesses to turn them over because 1) they can't determine who is illegal and who is not (because INS has such complex laws including things like over 300 different types of visas) and 2) if they did turn them in no one would show up to milk cows tomorrow and they get paid for milk.

Its a bit like the anti-gun lobby with their "If you remove all the guns then there will be no need for some one to have one" In a perfect world thats completely true, but of course the practicality is that you cant remove all the guns and so in the end only the outlaws have them and you're in a worse place than before.

Immigration is a genuinely complex issue - its like the square root of a negative number, there is only an imaginary answer - certainly not one solvable by someone who needs votes to stay in office. And those laws from Mexico - well they are just words on paper aren't they. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-02          144283

Kenneth, Billy is right, I don't think you've been a member long enough to have witnessed some of the less pleasant exchanges on this board.

Mostly it was those exchanges that created the need for 'moderators' in the first place.

Your points are valid and well taken, Ann, yours also are a perspective I had not thought of.

Joel, while I appreciate (and agree) with your observations on the need (and uses) of a standing army, they are sadly no longer appropriate or advisable.

As the song says "The times are a' changin' and so must we.".

Take for example the situation I was involved with in Grenada. Although there was saber rattling and overtures, political and military (from both sides) for weeks, but once the triggering event occurred, the shooting of over 100 people (including the democratically elected leader of the country) it took less than 48 hours to have Marines and Army Rangers were on the ground, and in sufficient numbers, and with enough air and naval support to secure the 133 square mile Island and it's 110,000 citizens and stop the Cuban-backed rebels in their tracks.

It's hardly reasonable to think that could be achieved with anything less than a crack force of well-trained and equipped professional soldiers.

It's kind of like insurance, you don't pay for it because you plan on using it, but NOT having it is not prudent either. How much you need is the big question.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-02          144287

Murf,

I joined the military, as a young kid, thinking that I was doing so to help provide security to my fellow citizens.

As my military career advanced, I began questioning our presence in Germany for (now) more than 60 years.....Japan, 60 years......Korea, 50 years.....as well as all of the military bases we have in the more than 120 nations around the world.

Somehow, in the back of my mind, I just knew that we Americans wouldn't take kindly to the Russians or Chinese having military troops in our country........and then I began to question our "good intentions".

After leaving the military, after a long and distinguished career, I decided to study history. If we're going to have our soldiers die on foreign soil, it might be nice to know why our government sent us there.

During my research, I read a passage from Ronald Reagan's book, which he wrote after leaving office. Hindsight is 20/20, even for past presidents. Reagan questioned his decision to send troops into Lebanon. He thought he was doing somebody some good.......but it soon became apparent that we weren't wanted. The deaths of some 200 U.S. Marines weighed heavily on Reagan's mind, because he knew in his heart those fine American soldiers didn't die while defending the U.S. They died for some utopian goal of preserving peace in the world......which is well beyond our power to control.

I firmly believe that the U.S. military is stationed in places where we shouldn't be. We have no business having military bases outside of the U.S. The U.S. military is supposed to defend the people of the U.S. from any possible foreign attack. It is not to be used to defend the people of every nation on earth. Our Constitution was written by Americans, for Americans. The Bosnians had no part in writing in our Constitution, and they don't pay taxes to support our military forces.

As far as I'm concerned, the people of every nation have a duty to provide for their own defenses.......and if they choose not to, it's not our duty to save them. No American soldier should ever die, but in defense of his own nation.

The U.S. was never meant to be the world's babysitter. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which allows our government to take on this mission....impossible as it is.

Joel

....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-02          144289

Joel, as always you make some very good, well thought out points, however, one I would like to respond to is "No American soldier should ever die, but in defense of his own nation.".

At what point do you finally draw the line in the sand? Take Grenada for instance, or Cuba, at what point do we say there is a threat at our door and do something about it?

I guess 'when' is each persons decision to make, for me, the words they drilled into my head at Quantico stuck, and still form the basis of my views to some extent, they were "Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy."

Notice the words, "...there is no enemy.".

An enemy a few thousand miles away is still an enemy and a threat. A few lives will be lost in any armed conflict, would you rather they be unarmed civilians on our own soil AFTER an invasion or attack, or somewhere on foreign soil?

In my case, Grenada was about stopping a Soviet base on our south border, and rescuing 1,000 unarmed and defenseless US, British & Canadians civilians in harms way with armed nuts threatening them. This is not baby-sitting to me.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-02          144290

Murf,

I'm of the opinion that we Americans are now scared of our own shadows.

A man in California, armed with a slingshot, poses no threat to me here in North Dakota. He cannot harm me, unless I'm dumb enough to show up his backyard.

A man in Iraq, armed with a rocket launcher, is no more of a threat to me, unless I'm dumb enough to get within a few hundred meters of him. His little rocket launcher isn't a threat to the U.S......nor is his AK-47.

We never invaded the U.S.S.R., even though they had thousands of ICBMs aimed at us. Had the Russians launched one, I would have attempted to shoot down that missile before it reached the U.S. And if I failed to do that, and Americans were killed, the U.S.S.R. would have disappeared under a cloud of nuclear fallout.

I still don't know why we're so afraid of Al-Queda. Their most powerful weapons are only dangerous out a few hundred meters.

The proper way to fight terrorism is to stop allowing these people into our nation. Once they get here, we lose our ability to "kill them over there".

The U.S. hasn't been invaded since 1812. Our weapons are the most powerful in the world. No invading force will ever reach our shores, as even a huge foreign naval force would be blown out of the water long before reaching U.S. waters. I'm not sure why we Americans pay for these impressive weapons, and then send our troops to places where they fall within range of the AK-47. (I'm scratching my head as I type this.)

Every American is free to travel about the world whenever he or she pleases. With this freedom comes plenty of risk, however. Once an American leaves the sovereign shores of the U.S., for the most part, he's on his own. Our government is not meant to serve as a babysitter for those who take this risk. Freedom has risks associated with it. The people of Russia were never allowed to leave their country......and none of them were ever held hostage. We have to decide which system we prefer to have. I choose the risk that comes with my freedoms.

I may be rubbing some feathers the wrong way here, but I know that we have to change the way we do business with the other nations of the world. Our current system of playing the world's policeman isn't solving anything. It's only making enemies, which our sons and daughters will then be expected to fight.

Our government was established for the purpose of defending the U.S. against any and all foreign attacks. However, we never gave our government the power to travel about the world seeking out those enemies. If they wish to attack the U.S........well, in President Bush's own words, "Bring 'em on!" I wish them luck. My M1 Garand is ready for some action.

Joel

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
crunch
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 271 Niagara County, NY
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-02          144298

These posts are way too long to read. I scan them and maybe pick off the first sentence of each paragraph to get the idea. I will tell you my view. Mass communications and global business will ultimately defeat archaic ways of life (like terrorism). Unfortunately mass communications will also lower our standard of living in the US and "equalize" wages throughout the world. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
bvance
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 280 The Great Pacific NorthWet, Olympia, WA
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144301

Some quick comments on this thread:

The Swiss (and I am 50% Swiss but 100% American) may not have participated in any wars but they certainly confiscated a tremendous amount of wealth from a deceased and terribly persecuted people. The Swiss are humans and all humans are imperfect and all to the same degree...it's only our perspective that differs.

I also heard that 43% of all people living in the US today are first generation Americans. At first I couldn't believe that, but when you think it through, it's probably accurate.

Brian

....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144302

Bvance,

Our own government in largely responsible for the negative opinion the American people have for the Swiss today.

The Swiss -- for the most part -- have lived in peace for more than 700 years.

Switzerland was one of the few nations that didn't need to be rescued from Hitler's Third Reich. No Americans died in an attempt to free the Swiss from Hitler's advances.

Twice, Hitler made plans to invade Switzerland. The Swiss protected and defended the Jews who lived in their nation.....and Hitler hated them for it. In fact, the Swiss governments made it a requirement that the Jews in that nation keep and bear arms........whereas Hitler disarmed the Jews in Germany.

Our Founders held the Swiss in high regard.

Most of what we've been told about the Swiss is a bunch of government propaganda, designed for the sole purpose of breaking the few ties that remained with our Founders.

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144306

Joel, with all due respect, your depiction of the Swiss as "one of the few nations that didn't need to be rescued from Hitler's Third Reich." is misleading at best.

Of course they didn't need to be rescued, they were the Nazis business partners and hosted all of their foreign banking and provided all the "holding" companies that the Nazis used to launder their stolen loot, including gold and art.

Do a little research on the subject, the results don't reveal a very idyllic picture.

According to a report by the Allied economic intelligence group entitled "Allied Claims Against Swiss for Return of Looted Gold" (dated February 5, 1946) provides the best estimate of gold looted from the central banks of Europe. The report shows a total of $648 million in Nazi gold.

At the outbreak of the war, the best estimate of the Nazi gold reserves was $100 million.

The difference of $548 million was looted from the countries of Europe that the Nazis occupied.

The report estimates from bank records that between $275 million and $282 million was sold to the SWISS NATIONAL BANK. The Government itself was doing this!

The report concludes that much of the gold, after being laundered by the Swiss, ended up in Portugal and Spain in accounts held by Swiss-based holding companies, fronts for the Nazis themselves.

On top of that, the British looked at and inventoried the stolen artwork from across occupied Europe, and stored in Swiss banks, they estimated the value of 53 paintings they found in one bank alone at $484,000 (1940's dollars). The report determined the total value of all the looted paintings at $390 to $545 million.

In 1941, in an effort to stop the Swiss from acting as the Nazis' bankers and front men the US froze all Swiss assets in the United States, and asked all the Allies to do likewise. In response the Swiss cut off the coal supply to the US embassy in the winter of 1941. The German embassy still received its coal allotment.

Now bear in mind, the Swiss also provided the Nazis with many manufactured goods that took much skill to make, such as machine tools, it supplied other items including railway locomotives and even arms and ammunition. Two key Swiss exports to the Nazis were electric power and aluminum.

Even in the very late days of the war, Switzerland was still helping the Nazis, in March 1945 the Swiss signed an agreement with the US that said the Swiss would freeze all German assets in Switzerland, prohibit the importation, exportation, and dealing in all foreign currencies, and to restrict Swiss purchases of gold from Germany. However, In May 1945, the U.S. Legation in Bern reported the Swiss had bought 3,000 kilograms of gold from Germany. The agreement clearly prohibited the purchase.

The Swiss merely stated that the gold was not looted gold.

In March 1946, formal talks with Switzerland, the US, Britain, and France started in Washington. Switzerland asserted that the Allies claim to German assets beyond Germany’s border was illegal and a violation of Switzerland's sovereignty. In return, the US insisted that Swiss funds remain frozen in the United States until the Swiss provided ironclad guarantees that they would identify and seize all accounts under German control.

The estimated total of German assets in Switzerland, EXCLUDING numbered accounts and cloaked assets to be $500 million, this was based on two comprehensive evaluations of German gold movements during the War, both were in the form of reports which had been prepared from the records of the Reichsbank found after Germany fell. The reports also concluded the Swiss took a total profit of some $289 million for laundering Nazi money.

In the end the Swiss made a deal with the Allies, they would liquidate all Nazi assets in Switzerland on the basis that all liquidated assets would be divided on a 50-50 split between Switzerland and the Allies!!

In 1997 a former Swiss bank guard Christoph Meili came forward with evidence that Union Bank of Switzerland was shredding documents concerning Union’s activities with the Nazis. Meili, a nighttime guard at Union Bank discovered a large quantity of documents waiting to be shredded. Among the documents were records of accounts from the war years. The young guard took two books and pages ripped from another to his locker that night, and then home. Meili then turned the books over to a Jewish organization in Switzerland. Swiss law forbids destroying documents that might relate to WWII investigations. For a reward in his efforts to uncover the truth, Union Bank fired Mr. Meili. The government also is investigating whether Meili violated any of the Swiss secrecy laws. The young man was subjected to threats of kidnapping of his daughters and has since moved to the United States. Even in the United States, Meili still receives death threats.

President Clinton signed a bill that granted the Meili family permanent resident status. Christoph Meili has the distinction of being the only Swiss citizen ever granted political asylum in the US.

Does this sound like a great peaceful nation to you?









....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144308

Murf,

War can be very profitable to those who don't partake in the hostilities.

At the outbreak of WWI, the U.S. was raking in some very impressive cash. All of the countries involved in the war were looking for the supplies needed to carry out their military operations. The U.S., being one of the few countries who remained neutral, was selling supplies to every other nation.....and we were making a killing at it.

When two or more nations go to war, the demand for products skyrockets. Nothing consumes more material in a short amount of time, than war. Those nations which decide to avoid the hostilities can make a fortune from those who spend the money necessary to take part in the fight.

Switzerland's actions are frowned upon by many. However, our Founders thought the U.S. could get rich by providing goods to those countries who took part in the wars. Financing Napoleon's war against the world resulted in some pretty spectacular bargains, and profits for us, here in the U.S.

When the U.S. finally entered WWI, all of our foreign business dealings came to an end. Soon thereafter, the U.S. went broke.

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144310

Joel, I'm not talking about making a profit selling goods to another country, I'm talking about being duplicitous in the THEFT and subsequent LAUNDERING of vast sums of money.

The money of the VICTIMS of the war.

In the early years the Swiss banks took incredible amounts of money in on deposit from wealthy Jewish families concerned about the way things were going politically.

Later the Swiss passed several laws, one which said a non-citizen could only withdraw money in person, and another which forbid entry to anyone who's passport started with the letter "J". The Nazis had forced all the puppet governments in occupied countries to add the prefix "J" to passports of known Jews. This amounted to the confiscation of an innocent persons assets for no reason other than race.

That is NOT neutrality.

There is a vast difference between legitimate business and criminal activity. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
bvance
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 280 The Great Pacific NorthWet, Olympia, WA
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-03          144315

Murf,

You are right on with your very informed and accurate depiction of the massive Swiss banking fraud on the Jews. Thank you for providing all of the information and saving me the time!

I am a banker and have researched this issues as well and you are spot on. As I said earlier, it just depends on one's perspective. Most people believe what they want to believe.

Joel, it is not just "a bunch of government propaganda"...it's the facts. But I have a feeling you believe what you want to and whatever facts Murf or anyone else puts forth will not change your opinion....and that's OK, you are entitled to your opinion and that's one of the things that makes our Country great...free speech.

No question that the U.S. has made many mistakes and some of them even tragic, but so has every other government....even the Swiss.

Brian ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-04          144321

I think George Bush is responsible for what the Swiss did to the Jews.

The only reason he hasn't repeated this kind of thing again is because he is too busy these days making hurricanes and blowing up bridges and tall buildings.

Give him enough time and he will get back to the banking and racial abuses. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
bvance
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 280 The Great Pacific NorthWet, Olympia, WA
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-04          144339

Mark,

Another classy, funny post. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
kthompson
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5275 South Carolina
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144671

Forgive me for revisiting this thread but there is a question I want to leave here:

"...The U.S. was on the march across the Pacific. First it was Hawaii, then the Philippines. We were getting closer to Japan with each passing day. The Japanese didn't have time to wait. Since we had already taken Hawaii by force, and in the process of subduing the people of the Philippines, the people of Japan were quite certain they already knew where we were headed next..."

If this was true, then why do those lands not fly the Stars and Strips today? For at the end of the war, we had them if we had wanted them. There may have been some concern by Russia but very little as they would have been very please for us to traded our protecting (part of) Germany for those islands. kt

....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144673

KThompson,

As they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

We do own Japan. It's ours. We own most of Europe, as well.

You may not believe this, but we also own Taiwan.

Our ownership doesn't come in the normal fashion. We don't fly our flag above their schools, banks, and government office buildings. Instead, we control their banks, their commerce, and their trade policies. In essence, those nations belong to us, in all but deed.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution makes it illegal for the U.S. to expand its territory. The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, and Jefferson clearly admitted it. He was forgiven, of course, but this didn't make it any more legal.

The Japanese signed an agreement with China, making Taiwan a part of Japanese territory. When we defeated Japan, in 1945, Taiwan fell into our hands......just as Cuba and the Philippines fell into our hands, after we defeated Spain, in the Spanish American War.

The Chinese want Taiwan back.......and they've clearly stated their intentions. The U.S. is prepared to meet any Chinese force, with force of our own....because we own it, and we won't allow it to be taken from us.

In truth, we own much of the world's land mass, though our congressmen have carefully hidden the land deeds from the American voters. What we don't know won't hurt us.

When our government idiots send American boys overseas to....as they so carefully phrase it..... "put an end to the human rights violations"....... what they really mean is, "We're sending in the Marines to protect our property rights!"

Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson............

_______________________________________________

"[The Louisiana Purchase was] laid before both Houses [of Congress], because both [had] important functions to exercise respecting it. They... [saw] their duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you. You may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we [were] not disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity [confirmed] and [did] not weaken the Constitution by more strongly marking out its lines." --Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1803. (*) ME 10:410

__________________________________________________

Some might wonder how it came to be that the U.S. has a military base at Cuba. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was acquired after we defeated Spain. We just kept enough of Cuba to make our presence known.

However, any such acquisition of foreign territory is specifically prohibited by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. It isn't legal for the U.S. to acquire foreign lands, either by cash, or by force.

More to come if you're interested. I truly enjoy the discussion.......crazy as I may seem to some people here.

Trying to undo 150 years of false history, written and distributed by our government, is no easy chore.......but I'm up to the task.


Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
SG8NUC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 579 g
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144674

Kt,

We were not going to give up our foot hole in Germany, we had wanted one for many years. After WWII we now had a very strong presence close to Russia on both fronts. Why own the wagon and horse when you can control the reins and guide the whole business. With all of our problems and shortcommings America is the best thing going. I see know anywhere out there that I would rather live. In other countries (for the most part) working class people are just tools in the bag to be employed and discarded. SG. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144675

Joel, with all due respect, I think your reading of legalese needs a bit of work.

As far as I can see the passage you are referring to is;

Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Which does not "makes it illegal for the U.S. to expand its territory." It makes it illegal to do it at the point of a gun. There is a difference.

Notice the explicit wording "all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be". In other words, if the Legislature of Country XYZ votes to sell it's lands to the US, that IS a legal act under the US constitution. What it does is make it illegal for the US Government to take any land by any means EXCEPT the above process.

IF you want to go one step further still, the clause specifically speaks of some of the reasons why the US would want foreign lands. This can be found in the final verse of Clause 17 "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;".

So there you have it. Foreign lands can be purchased quite legally under the Constitution, in fact whole blocks of land such as the Louisiana Territory and Alaska where bought quite legally.

BTW, if you take Jefferson's words in the proper context, he was apologizing for spending money that wasn't his, but the nations, in fact future generations even. He even says so. "[The Louisiana Purchase was] laid before both Houses [of Congress], because both [had] important functions to exercise respecting it. They... [saw] their duty to their country in RATIFYING and PAYING for it......". Notice the word "ratify", it means to confirm, or make something valid. Jefferson would not have been so careless in syntax or law as to think that a vote of the houses could make right an illegal act.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144679

Murf,

With all due respect, Sir, and I do mean that from the bottom of my heart.........

You have to understand the frame of mind our Founders were in when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Frankly, they were sick and tired of the kings of the world, and the ways in which they operated.

Kings, out of a simple desire to own more land than they were anointed with at birth, took children from their parents; fathers from their children; brothers from their sisters....etc....and forced them to fight wars that had nothing whatever to do with their own defense.

These were wars of aggression, which were fought for reasons of greed. There were always good excuses given for fighting these wars, but the excuses didn't hold water when compared to the Laws of God.

Man has a natural (God-given) right to kill in self-defense. But when once a man intentionally kills another human being for any other purpose, it is murder.

The people of any invaded nation have a perfect right to kill their invaders. This is a natural right, that simply cannot be taken away by any law made by man. (NO....they are not insurgents, nor are they terrorists. They are PATRIOTS!)

When we entered WWI, we did so out of greed. The U.S. was not threatened in any way.

When we entered WWII, the same was true. Neither Japan nor Germany had ANY intention of involving the U.S. in the war.

When we entered Korea, it wasn't in our own defense.

When we entered Vietnam, it was not associated with any rightful defense of our nation.

In none of these wars was the U.S. invaded, nor did any American soldiers kill in self-defense. Our soldiers obeyed their government. They thought it their duty to kill for their government.......or to obey the orders given by their leaders........but they disobeyed God's Commandments in doing so.

It's a tough pill to swallow, and many of our soldiers have a difficult with this. I know....because I was one of them. (Sergeant York was DECEIVED!)

Our Founders wanted nothing to do with these illegal acts of war. They formed a Constitution that would prevent our government from acquiring any additional lands, than those lands specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

The amount of land given to the Federal Government is so small that it is difficult to find it on a map.

It is a piece of land 10 miles square, or 100 square miles in size. The ONLY other land the Federal Government was authorized to acquire, was that land sold by the States, for the specific purpose of building Forts, Magazines, Dockyards, and other needful buildings.......all relating to our national defense.

The States cannot sell any land that they don't have. The States hold no foreign land, such as Hawaii, the Philippines, or even Taiwan. All NATIONAL DEFENSE installations were to be located WITHIN THE U.S. (We have no legal territories to defend)



Additionally,

There is no provision listed in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to spend one penny of your money, or mine, for the purpose of purchasing any land from another nation. To do so would be a violation of the Constitution.

Congress is authorized to spend your money for only 18 things........and THAT'S IT. Those 18 things can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

To spend one penny of your money for any other purpose, is an unconstitutional act.

I refer you to Colonel Davey Crockett. See the link below. Enjoy the reading.

Your friend.

Joel ....


Link:   NOT YOURS TO GIVE!

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
SG8NUC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 579 g
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144685

Joel,

Now, I did enjoy the reading. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144687

SG8NUC,

I was discussing some of this stuff with the local high school history teacher. (It's a small town...there's only one history teacher here.)

We were discussing the things the kids have to recite and remember as they progress through school, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, etc.

After about three cups of coffee, it became quite apparent that our students are never once required to read that speech written by Colonel David Crockett -- nor the fantastic speech given by Daniel Webster, concerning the military draft, then called "Conscription".

In fact, most everything our children learn in school today, are those things that support the government's position on globalism.

Over the past several years, I've dug up all sorts of little gems that most Americans (including me) had never heard of before.

We've all heard President Roosevelt speak those famous words, "Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy....blah blah blah....

-- but we've never heard or read President Cleveland's speech, when he said, (referring to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Queen and her government) --

"It is unnecessary to set forth the reasons which in January, 1893, led a considerable proportion of American and other foreign merchants and traders residing at Honolulu to favor the annexation of Hawaii to the United States. It is sufficient to note the fact and to observe that the project was one which was zealously promoted by the Minister representing the United States in that country."

In January of 1993, on the 100th anniversary of the illegal taking of Hawaii, the U.S. Congress offered an official apology. No American school student has ever seen that precious document either........or at least very, very few of them.

None of this is by accident. It's not a coincidence that these precious documents remain hidden from public view.

Joel ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
SG8NUC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 579 g
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-14          144690

Joel,

I understand that this might be an important subject to you, never mind history. Everything relgious that this country was founded for and on, is not in school. Nothing about the bible. Our government backs this outrage. A few people do not belive, so no-one is allowed to speak or pray in areas that are paid for by tax payers. It has been a few years since I attended school. I wonder what the teachers answer is when they are asked why the first settlers came to this country. So we could eventually take advantage of Germany, Japan, Iraq, Panama, Hawaii, Watch out Murf we have gone east,west and south. Maybe we will plunder Canada yall are next. SG. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-15          144692

SG8NUC,

You bring up a very good point, and I thank you.

At one time in this nation, religion was taught in every school in the northeastern U.S., from a book that could be found in nearly every U.S. household.

This book, The New England Primer, was plum filled with stories from the bible. And every child used stories from the bible for which to learn the English alphabet.

Interestingly enough, the Civil War brought an end to religion being taught in our schools. The government hammer came down on the entire nation. And for those who live in the South, I have some shocking news to share.......it wasn't just you southern folk who were shackled afterward. All of us have been.

THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER......for those who have never read, or seen it before.

Joel ....


Link:   The New England Primer

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-15          144700

Joel, I'm sorry, but you just haven't read CLause 17 correctly, you are blending two completely different items into one, and they are NOT one thought.

Again, here it is in it's entirety, sorry for the repetition;

Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Notice it clearly says "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased...".

It says that they are authorized to buy or accept up to 10 square miles for the Federal Capital, and that they (the Federal Government) will have exclusive jurisdiction over it, it cannot become a State, AND the Federal Government will have the same exclusive authority over "all Places purchased". It does not limit the size, cost or location of purchased territories, it does though suggest what they may be for; "...for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;".

Now it CAN be argued that this was meant to be for the Federal Government to buy or accept lands FROM States, i.e. to convert State lands into Federal Bases, etc., but again, it does NOT limit the size or location, so it doesn't matter if it's Subic Bay in the Philippines, or Gitmo in Cuba or a place here in North America, it's allowed.

As for your statement "In none of these wars was the U.S. invaded, nor did any American soldiers kill in self-defense." This is wrong.

As an example, on 3rd June 1942 the Japanese planes commenced an attack on Dutch Harbour, Alaska, it was followed up by another the next day, and an attack on Kiska, and the day after that, Japanese troops landed at Attu in the western Aleutians. All in all, it took nearly a year to push the Japanese out of Alaska, and the fighting stretched across more than 1,000 miles. At one point there was more than 8,000 Japanese troops in Alaska. There were hundreds of soldiers killed (on both sides) in the battle for control.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-15          144702

Silly Murf-Meister.

We stole Alaska and since we don't rightfully own it, the Japanese had a perfect right to invade if they wished.

It is just another of many indictments against George W. Bush. If we can't impeach him for this theft we can only hope that someday he will pay. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
candoarms
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1932 North Dakota
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-15          144704

DRankin,

I hope you were only kidding. I honestly believe you were.

The Japanese landed on the Alaskan islands, with one goal in mind. And, to be quite honest, it was their only and last hope.

The goal was to take the U.S. off of the offensive, and put us on defense.

If this plan had worked as it was designed to, we would have pulled our naval forces out of the South Pacific and placed them in our home waters, which would have taken the heat off of Japan and her mission.

The plan failed, because we knew that the Japanese soldiers who landed on those islands had no hope of actually reaching the U.S. without a massive naval effort on the part of the Japanese. Those stranded Japanese soldiers were actually a great benefit to us, because it removed them from the important battles taking place in the Pacific.

In all honesty, there was never any need for the U.S. to attempt to take back those Alaskan islands. The weather would have done the job for us, had only we been patient. All we needed to do was allow Mother Nature to do her thing.

Murf,

There's no desire, on my end, to argue this point any further, because I truly enjoy the discussion, and I have no intension of making any enemies over this.

I leave you with a few important writings. You shouldn't listen to me anyway, but rather draw your own conclusions from these historical documents.


Have a great, both of you.

Joel ....


Link:   Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

 
Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo



A thought-provoking eye-opener

View my Photos
Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
TractorPoint Premium Member -- 5 Tractors = Very Frequent Poster  View my Photos  Pics

2007-08-15          144707

Mark, maybe now that he isn't listening to Rove he'll see the error of his ways and stop all this foolishness!!

Joel, I studied, law amongst other things, at the expense of Uncle Sam, it doesn't mean my brain doesn't work on it's own, or that I can't come to my own conclusions.

The Constitution is quite clear, and written in quite plain language. Even the link you included makes "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be..." unequivocal. Places is plural, not singular. The word States, again is plural, and is not meant to mean a State within the US, since at the time the Constitution was written, there were none. It was meant, and still does, as my dictionary calls it "a politically organized community". This is why for example official functions of a nation are called "State Functions".

I agree, argueing this point further would not be usefull.

Best of luck. ....

Reply to | Quote Post Reply to PostQuote Reply | Add PhotoAdd Photo


  Go Top Go Top

Share This
Share This







Member Login