| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] |
|
|
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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?
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
A thought-provoking eye-opener
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.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | Thread 144223 Filter by Poster:
1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 1 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
DennisCTB
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
07-31-2007, 15:27 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us