Usa Thread

[Steve]

For the record, I will state, an unsecured border, especially given today's world is insane. 200 years ago it was barely an issue, in fact it was a plus. The far west needed people. Given today's world and America specifically its bat shit crazy. BUt as I said, there are forces that want it open for their own selfish reasons (and those forces aren't liberals). Securing the border MUST also be done while other changes are made. Unrestricting the importation of many foods to counter the sharp increase in food prices. Sending the ones here back is pretty much a non starter. Why? First, they are needed for the economy in many places. Illegals have to shop too. They even shop at WalMart, Costco and other major US companies..lol. Another reason is that they are also de facto humitarian aid to Mexico and central America. These countries NEED to stay economically viable for the security of the region. Remittances (money from residents living abroad) is vital. 20% of Mexicans recieve the 25 billion dollars of money sent mainly from America. http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3028 Send them back and you will have a bigger problem down the road. The cost of everything would rise dramatically in California and the border states and California is the base of the U.S. economy. By itself its a G8 nation, bigger than Italy to give you some perspective. It WILL trigger a major recession from hyper inflation of wages, housing costs, etc. if you rounded up everyone and sent them back then accept the economic consequences. The housing industry would take a major hit, all sorts of industries and especially certain regions. Trust me, agriculture, restaurants, etc. do NOT want amnesty either. It automatically drives up the costs of labor, with the additional cost of vacation time, etc.

Basically, what I'm saying is totally securing the border has to be a planned event for all the related issues. The Law of Unintended Consequences will happen if its not planned right, the law says solving one problem (without analysis) creates a bigger, unforseen problem (or problems..plural).

[unit731]

A long list of US intervention in Central America.

There is a reason why these countries are called "Banana Republics".

 

Below is a partial list.

 

1850, 1853, 1854, 1857

U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.

 

1905

U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.

1907

Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.

1909

Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.

1910

U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.

1912

Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925

 

1921

President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.

 

 

LINK

[Flashermac]

Nov 3, 1903:

Panama declares independence

 

 

With the support of the U.S. government, Panama issues a declaration of independence from Colombia. The revolution was engineered by a Panamanian faction backed by the Panama Canal Company, a French-U.S. corporation that hoped to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with a waterway across the Isthmus of Panama.

 

In 1903, the Hay-Herrán Treaty was signed with Colombia, granting the United States use of the Isthmus of Panama in exchange for financial compensation. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, but the Colombian Senate, fearing a loss of sovereignty, refused. In response, President Theodore Roosevelt gave tacit approval to a rebellion by Panamanian nationalists, which began on November 3, 1903. To aid the rebels, the U.S.-administered railroad in Panama removed its trains from the northern terminus of Colón, thus stranding Colombian troops sent to crush the insurrection. Other Colombian forces were discouraged from marching on Panama by the arrival of the U.S. warship Nashville.

 

On November 6, the United States recognized the Republic of Panama, and on November 18 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed with Panama, granting the United States exclusive and permanent possession of the Panama Canal Zone. In exchange, Panama received $10 million and an annuity of $250,000 beginning nine years later. The treaty was negotiated by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and the owner of the Panama Canal Company. Almost immediately, the treaty was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country's new national sovereignty.

 

On August 15, 1914, the Panama Canal was inaugurated with the passage of the U.S. vessel Ancon, a cargo and passenger ship. After decades of protest and negotiations, the Panama Canal passed to Panamanian control in December 1999.

 

 

http://www.history.c...es-independence

[Steve]

Its the 100th anniversary of WW1. Not really a world war since it was only in Europe but as westerners we believe anything where we are central is the world..hehehe...any way, its unlikely we will ever see a war between the major countries these days. By major I mean the largest economies. As much as we may not like it we are all infinitely connected and symbiotic than ever before. A war, and I mean even a conventional war, will result in no winner. The global economy would go into a deep world wide recession and possibly depression depending on the length of the war. THe only ones that won't are wars against non significant economic powers. If you notice America's wars are against minor economies in the modern era. A war between any G8 nation would have a very serious global economic impact. It truly is the macro version of the 'if a butterly flaps it wings in Asia, a typhoon will happen in elsewhere' or something to that effect.

[Flashermac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tsingtao

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bita_Paka

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_theatre_of_World_War_I

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_theatre_of_World_War_I

[Flashermac]

New York Times calls for legalization of marijuana across US

 

 

New York- Influential US daily The New York Times called Sunday for the United States to legalize marijuana for recreational users over 21.

 

"The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana," said an editorial written by the newspaper’s board. The decision was "inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws," it added.

 

The decision was "long in the making," editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal said in an accompanying blog post.

 

Last year Colorado and Washington became the first US states to legalize the sale of marijuana for recreational use to people 21 or older.

 

Many other states are looking at similar liberalization of their marijuana laws, but on the federal level it remains illegal.

 

Theditorial said it had been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, "inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol."

 

It dismissed addiction as a "relatively minor problem" in healthy adults, but said there were "legitimate concerns about marijuana on the development of adolescent brains."

 

The Times compared the ban on marijuana to prohibition - the 13-year period starting in 1920 during which the sale of alcohol was prohibited.

 

"It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished," the editorial said.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/New-York-Times-calls-for-legalization-of-marijuana-30239616.html

[Steve]

Does anyone REALLY know why we had the drug laws on pot in the first place? Look at the history of drug laws in America. The reason why we have them. In the first century of this country you could put what ever you wanted into your body. There were no restrictions. Many 'tonics' had opiates, etc. in them.

[unit731]

Does anyone REALLY know why we had the drug laws on pot in the first place? Look at the history of drug laws in America. The reason why we have them. In the first century of this country you could put what ever you wanted into your body. There were no restrictions. Many 'tonics' had opiates, etc. in them.

 

Yes, it is quite interesting.

First delete the conspiracy theories about the beer, wine, and spirits industries causing this. Prohibition was quite strong at the turn of the century. So there was a movement to ban all stimulants and such.

 

Long before the Food and Drug Administration or FDA.

 

We have all viewed Western Movies - with the traveling salesman with the magic elixirs that "cured" everything.

Well that and more was true.

In every hamlet, town, and city the drug stores sold a multiplicity of these elixirs.

All had some form of opiate. Heroin, morphine, and cocaine.

And folks with real or imagined illnesses swore that these magic elixirs worked - as any pain went away.

 

Coca-Cola originally was one of these concoctions.

 

The fact was that the average housewife began taking these elixirs on a regular basis. Almost to epidemic proportions.

But for laws to be passed restricting such - some had to throw in the Black men were imbibing such. And posed a threat to good decent white women.

Yes, the race card again was used. Sadly and erroneously.

 

All is a tad more complicated then this but one of the first laws was about labeling the ingredients.

 

In the end the real culprit was housewives - stoned most of the time. And of course, the ones that could afford such elixirs.

[Mekong]

Does anyone REALLY know why we had the drug laws on pot in the first place? Look at the history of drug laws in America. The reason why we have them. In the first century of this country you could put what ever you wanted into your body. There were no restrictions. Many 'tonics' had opiates, etc. in them.

 

 

Steve

 

My understanding is that it was Harry J. Anslinger who crimilised pot http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/anslinger.htm

[Flashermac]

Some states had already banned marijuana, as had the Republic of Mexico. But Anslinger is the guy who pushed it nationally and got the federal legislation through. Asslicker was convinced that pot made people violent and drove them to commit sex crimes. Of course, anyone who has seen people high and pot can tell you that it does just the opposite. Alcohol is more likely to do what Aslinger claimed. As a female Thai friend once said to me, "When I drink, I feel angry and want to fight with someone. When I smoke pot, I feel happy and love everyone."

 

I have a medical flyer that was sent to one of my ggg grandfathers, a doctor in the 1850s who died at 33 from a disease he contracted from a patient. The flyer offered opium and morphine, among other things, that could be purchased and delivered in the mail.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States