I'd make everyone move to france and keep the rest of the world to
myself.

thats called bringing in the best possible immigrants, you have to have
some guidlines, our economy cannot handle unlimited immigration, it just
cant do it. 1/10 of our farmland, ok, where are you going to put the
unlimmited immigrants in your pocket? Reality my man, very important for
the president to live within the realm of reality. Maybe that is why
there is an age limit put on eligable candidants? (young dumb and full
of cum) in other words live, and learn a few years first.
You are babbling again when you say that the immigration concerns are
based on prejudice. Thats an arguement used by the uninformed, when they
have nothing viable to add to the arguement. Prove it, if you think the
whole thing is based on prejudice, otherwise stop the slander.

Our economy could easily handle unlimited imigration. We're essentially
doing it right now, by all the job outsourcing we've done. There is the
equivilent of about half a billion workers producing "american" goods.
Like our clothing, car parts, etc. Close up the leaks and we have more
than enough in the states. In fact, we'll need to increase immigration
just to fill the job slots.


Oh, and I did some research. American military can be deployed within
the states, so long as they're in non-military functions. Aka- they can
be used for construction labor.... just not as a police force. Except
the national guard, within its own state, of course.

Our economy might be able to handle unlimited imigrations. Or it might
not.

But our infrastructure is no where near capable of handling a large
influx of people. Ask countries in africa that border strife torn areas
what it is like trying to absorb thousands upons thousands of people.

Fair enough. I never said I'd want them to just flood in- that'd be
disasterous. But we can easily absorb them. Play the cards right, and
they'd be a boon to the economy, not a detriment.

Why dont we just invade an annex Mexico? Then we could collect taxes off
the industries as well as personal income, and have more oil, collect
sales taxes, etc.......

You said we can easily absorb open immigration. we are doing it
now.......
Dont you hear people griping?
Dont you read these threads, or do you just dismiss us all as prejudice
bigots?

Annexing mexico.... would be helpful, yes. Somehow, I doubt they'll go
along with it.... and we really don't need to open the "imperialist" can
of worms again. Usually people who say that are idiots who don't
understand world politics. But a military anex of an existing nation
would make them right. Oh well.

poet-Oh, and I did some research. American military can be deployed
within
the states, so long as they're in non-military functions. Aka- they can
be used for construction labor.... just not as a police force. Except
the national guard, within its own state, of course.



the us armed forces are not allowed Constitutionally to deploy with in
the US borders to every be put in a position to fire upon an american
citizen. of course the founders wrote it better. now that doesnt mean
that state cant deploy their guard members to help in times of need,
whether it be riots in LA or kent university, there are times of natrual
disasters when the army can be deployed in thee US to help as well ie
katrina... but know that those troops deployed without ammo for their
weapons ad were sent there as a means to help the local government.
in the 80's a survey was given to US troops- this survey (given at a
time when the UN was given more it deserved) asked two very hard
questions, would you have difficulty in taking weapons away from
americans, and would you firee on an american. the answers to both were
a resounding HELL NO!!!!



as to the topic---
Id smoke the biggest joint i could,make some democrats pissy by saying
the truth about everything and anything. you want to know about area 51
well here you go, you wanna know the truth this or that well then here
you go. think Id make some others mad by making the world up hold to the
standard in which they try to make us. make the countries that owe us
money pay it back, a host of others. i know its a serious question but
its very hard to answer.

d

poet-Oh, and I did some research. American military can be deployed
within
the states, so long as they're in non-military functions. Aka- they can
be used for construction labor.... just not as a police force. Except
the national guard, within its own state, of course.



the us armed forces are not allowed Constitutionally to deploy with in
the US borders to every be put in a position to fire upon an american
citizen. of course the founders wrote it better. now that doesnt mean
that state cant deploy their guard members to help in times of need,
whether it be riots in LA or kent university, there are times of natrual
disasters when the army can be deployed in thee US to help as well ie
katrina... but know that those troops deployed without ammo for their
weapons ad were sent there as a means to help the local government.
in the 80's a survey was given to US troops- this survey (given at a
time when the UN was given more it deserved) asked two very hard
questions, would you have difficulty in taking weapons away from
americans, and would you firee on an american. the answers to both were
a resounding HELL NO!!!!



as to the topic---
Id smoke the biggest joint i could,make some democrats pissy by saying
the truth about everything and anything. you want to know about area 51
well here you go, you wanna know the truth this or that well then here
you go. think Id make some others mad by making the world up hold to the
standard in which they try to make us. make the countries that owe us
money pay it back, a host of others. i know its a serious question but
its very hard to answer.

d

ooooooopps, damned technology

Poet got a point on the food issue. In truth and reality if the United
Ststes Government wasn't such a capitalist pig. There is enough food
that the so called shortage or starvation would be a thing of the past.
There is enough food to feed everyone in the world. If total world food
supplies were divided equally - all food grown divided in equal portions
- there would be plenty for everyone, with some to spare; in fact, today
the world produces 10 percent more food than is needed to feed everyone.

The basic food of the world is grain (sometimes called cereal): wheat,
rice, maize and other grains. World cereal stocks represent a safeguard
against possible future production shortage, it is important to remember
that they are, for the most part, held in major cereal-exporting
countries, including the United States, Canada and the EEC nations - and
not where food shortages are most likely to occur. In addition, a large
portion of these stocks are actually maize or other feed grains, which
are not always accepted as human food.

Even if the world’s population rises by half during the rest of this
century, food production - if it continues at the present rate - should
more than keep pace. There would still be enough food for all in the
year 2000.

However, in Africa increased food production does not keep pace with
population increases, so that the average African now has 10 percent
less domestically grown food to eat than ten years ago. But even in
countries facing constant and widespread food scarcity, there are people
who eat well and in sufficient quantities.

Hunger, then, is not simply a matter of the quantity of food available.
It is also one of distribution and imbalances brought about by
international trade, which affect developing countries. Food tends to go
to the countries that derive profits from trading and, in turn, to the
people who have the most money

Yeah. That'd be fun. I wanna hear about Area 51, too. And whilst you're
toking up, legalize the stuff. Give them something to *seethe* about.

Here is some interesting history



MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR

On March 24, 1846, an American army commanded by General Zachary Taylor
encamped along the northern banks of the Rio Grande, directly across the
river from Mexican soldiers. Within a month, hostilities commenced: a
large body of Mexican cavalrymen attacked a patrol of dragoons on April
23. Declaring that "American blood had been shed on American soil",
President Polk addressed Congress, who declared war on May 13, 1846.

The Mexican-American War was born from the nation's quest for new
territory and it's ambition to stretch coast to coast. Questions about
Texan independence, disputed territory along the Rio Grande, and revolts
in California also contributed to the conflict. The war essentially
consisted of three different campaigns. Soldiers once stationed at Fort
Scott played a role in each of these campaigns.

Zachary Taylor's Army
Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845. The move angered Mexico
because they had never officially recognized Texan independence. General
Zachary Taylor was sent to Texas with a large army to provide
protection. Two companies of infantry from Fort Scott were included in
Taylor's contingent of men. In August of 1845, Taylor arrived in Corpus
Christi on the Nueces River. Mexico claimed that the Nueces was the
southern boundary of Texas, while Texas claimed land all the way to the
Rio Grande.

When Taylor took position on the north banks of the Rio Grande in the
spring of 1846, his army proved to be too great a target for the Mexican
Army. A portion of the Mexican Army crossed the Rio Grande and engaged a
body of eighty dragoons, killing eleven of them and capturing most of
the rest. Claiming that "American blood had been shed on American soil
," President James K. Polk asked Congress for a declaration of war. War
was declared on May 13, 1846.

One of the strategies of the war was that the invasion of Mexico City
would force the Mexican government to capitulate to the Americans'
territorial claims. Taylor won a string of victories as he marched
through Northern Mexico on the way to Mexico City. His campaign reached
its apex at Buena Vista where he outfought superior numbers and repelled
a two- front attack led by the Mexican general, Santa Anna. He was
assisted in this effort by General John Wool, who had recently arrived
with a contingent of dragoons including company A, which had departed
from Fort Scott in June of 1846 .

The Army of the West
One of the campaigns of the war involved the conquest of what is now the
American Southwest. Santa Fe, being the linchpin of a lucrative trade,
was a coveted prize. To protect the Santa Fe Trade and to take New
Mexico, the regiment of 1st Dragoons was dispatched under the leadership
of Stephen Kearny. Company C, which had been stationed at Fort Scott
from 1842-43, accompanied the expedition.

Joined by 1000 Missouri volunteers, Kearny's expedition made the 537
mile march from Fort Leavenworth to Bent's Fort during the summer of
1846 and then turned south to Santa Fe. The New Mexicans gave no
resistance to Kearny's army. They believed that American rule would be
good for trade and were tired of being neglected by the Mexican
government. Santa Fe was captured in August of 1846 without a single
shot being fired.

After taking New Mexico, Kearny headed his army toward California. En
route he was met by Kit Carson, who told him that California was already
in the hands of the United States. Since the trail ahead was difficult
and had little water, Kearny elected to send all but two of his
companies back to Santa Fe.

Kit Carson's news that California had been conquered proved to be a bit
premature as the Californios - the Mexicans living in California-rose in
revolt. After completing a long and arduous march across the desert,
Kearny arrived at Warner's Ranch near San Diego on December 2, 1846. He
had learned of the revolt shortly before entering California and now
found himself facing an army of superior numbers stationed near the
village of San Pasqual.

Despite the exhaustion of his men from their long march, Kearny ordered
a surprise attack on the Californian army in hopes of a swift victory.
Captain Benjamin Moore-Fort Scott's first commander-led a saber charge
which proved to be disastrous. The dragoons were no match for the
Californian lancers. Only the arrival of reinforcements and artillery
prevented complete disaster. While the Americans took the battlefield,
they had paid dearly. Eighteen dragoons lie dead including Captain
Moore.

Kearny and his men reached San Diego on December 11, where they joined
forces with a body of marines commanded by Commodore Robert Stockton.
With their combined forces, they were able to put down the revolt and
secure the possession of California for the United States.

Invasion of Mexico City
To prevent a costly land war and an overland march by Taylor, his
campaign was halted after Buena Vista. Much of his command was
transferred to General Winfield Scott- for whom the fort was named. The
infantry units that had once been stationed at Fort Scott now joined
Winfield Scott's army as he conducted an amphibious assault against
Veracruz. After seizing Veracruz in March of 1847, Winfield Scott began
his march inland toward Mexico City. By August, the army had reached the
outskirts of Mexico City. After a series of costly victories, one of
which claimed the life of Colonel William Graham-the fort's second
commander, Mexico City was invaded on September 13, 1847.

The capture of Mexico City clinched the outcome of war. The peace
treaty, which was ratified on May 30, 1848, turned the entire Southwest
over to the United States. The question of Texas was settled, and land
comprising the present states of Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California,
Arizona and New Mexico became U.S. territory. The Mexican War combined
with the overland trail migrations and the gold rush of 1849 bought
about the fulfillment of "Manifest Destiny". Expansion brought about an
end to the notion of a Permanent Indian Frontier and the abandonment of
Fort Scott in 1853.

The 1840s was an important era because it defined the direction the
United States would take as a nation. Events in the 1840s would have far
reaching effects. Settlers in California and Oregon would prove to be
key players in the establishment of a transcontinental railroad. The
debate over slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico would prove
to be a catalyst that led to the Civil War.

Suggested Reading
So Far From God, John S.D. Eisenhower
The Mexican War 1846-48, K. Jack Bauer
To Conquer a Peace: The U. S. War with Mexico, John Edward Weems
Related Sites
Mexican War Memorial Homepage
Mexican-American War
Mexican War-The History Guy
Mexican War-PBS Series

Damn that was longer than it looked on the web site:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/fosc/mexican.htm

Yep. We kicked the crap out of mexico and ended up with most of the
desert territory we actually posses. You coulda just said that.


And I meant a modern-day expansionist war. We haven't seen one of those
in a very long time.

The first thing I would do is close the borders, to everyone that isn't
a legal American citizen. Until there is a REAL, ENFORCEABLE policy for
accepting immigrants properly, just shut the whole mess down. Yes, in
the meantime, just ship them back to where they came from, whether their
own country wants them back or not.
Second, I would make it mandatory for all politicians to take sodium
pentathol before speaking to anyone in their professional capacity.
Third, eliminate all ESL and other classes that shouldn't even be
offered in public schools, and drain the minimal budgets they are
working with, to improve education overall.
As far as Iraq goes, all allies should simply seal them in, so they
couldn't get out and go killing anyone else, and let them hash it out
between themselves, until they evolved enough to learn how to play nice
with everybody else. Nothing goes in (hate the rest of the world so
much, then we can stop supporting you), and nothing out (can't control
your lunatics, don't send them elsewhere or even let them loose).
Bring any soldiers possible back home, and let them work on rebuilding
the south after Katrina.
As far as all the rest of the problems in the world, sorry, but we would
have to get ourselves back up to full running power before they could
come to us begging the US to "fix it" all the time.

There is more poeyandartist, I watched a documentary on The history
channel that said America was thinking of keeping Mexico at the time,
but the Generals told the President that it would take too much American
manpower, because the avg Mexican citizen would not fight, and stood in
the streets waving as if we were welcome, and showed no inclination to
fight anyone. So, the president ordered the troops home, and we kept the
territories already Americanized.

That woulda been an interesting mix together. Probably wise we didn't
try and absorb them back then. Could only imagine how the Civil War
would have played out, if nothing else.

Really, I was once, not too long ago, trying to find out what was the
Mexican Gov doing during the 2nd WW, whether they had fought and where.
Couldnt find anything, the greatest threat in the history of the World
and the Mexican government didnt send one soldier to fight. They did
however, allow the Nazis to survey their coast along the Gulf of Mexico
for a possible U-boat base. The Germans wanted the base to disrupt
American shipping in the Gulf of Mexico, and through the Panama canal.
Fortunately for us the Germans could not find a suitable spot, or WWII
might have been a lot different.

Germany supposedly tried to get mexico to engage a war against the US.


But, regardless, the war would have been a lot uglier- but the allies
would have won no matter how it was sliced. Germany and Japan were the
only two strong fighters. Germany betrayed Russia, and would no doubt
have betrayed their other allies. In fact, Germany's attack on Russia
was the direct reason why Communism got a foothold their.


Regardless, we would have got the Nuke, and we would have used it.
Perhaps on Mexico City and Berlin, instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....
but that'd be the end of things.