[paraclete]

Paraclete: I could say that in a century from now, why would any of us care because we'll all be deader than a door nail.....but: The U.S. is going to "Stop" the "INVASION" as you call it: While most American have gone ballistic over the hard-edges of Trump on the "Border" subject and how he wants to address it, you can bet that Trump is just the start of the attention: There will be more Trumps to come in the U.S., that is inevitable: The next succession of Trump-like leaders will be even more hard-edged about the border situation.....the U.S. will prevail and retain the English language: We won't become a FRANCE.

Who would want to become France, Vac, but you are in danger of becoming Spain, which is a basket case or is that basque case country

[Athos]

W.G. & Paraclete: Hold on a second: The U.S. didn't do the attacking or the starting in any of the conflicts you mention here......Let me enlighten you:

1) First off: MEXICANS are an amalgamation of Native American and Spanish....there were NO MEXICANS in what is MEXICO when the Spanish Conquistadors arrived and started slaughtering the natives and breeding with the native women to form what is today called a MEXICAN.....there is no PURE STRAIN of people that are MEXICAN, they have varying percentages of Native/Indian and Spanish blood coursing through their veins. MEXICANS ARE CERTAINLY NOT A SPECIES OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THEIR MIXTURES ARE INCONSISTENT.

Your last line reads like it came right out of Mein Kampf.

If Mexicans are not a "species of people", what are you? By your own moronic reasoning, an American is a mixture of dozens of ethnicities. You personally are a mixture of whatever you are a mixture of, maybe two, maybe five - do you know? - different peoples.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You're not helping your case by all the dopiness you consistently post here with your fractured history.

[Vacuum7]

Athos: I appreciate your candidness: What I meant by the comment about Mexican and "species" (probably not the best word to use!): If you are in China, the people are almost a pure strain....Mexicans are neither Native Americans nor are they Spanish: they are two peoples combined......Nothing derogatory was meant by the comment other than to say it is factually incorrect for Mexicans to say "our people" or pretend to be a pure people and say "Mi Raza" (My Race), not only is that categorically wrong (Mexicans ARE NOT A RACE!) but doesn't that really sound a lot like the calls of Aryanism?

[paraclete]

Athos: I appreciate your candidness: What I meant by the comment about Mexican and "species" (probably not the best word to use!): If you are in China, the people are almost a pure strain....Mexicans are neither Native Americans nor are they Spanish: they are two peoples combined......Nothing derogatory was meant by the comment other than to say it is factually incorrect for Mexicans to say "our people" or pretend to be a pure people and say "Mi Raza" (My Race), not only is that categorically wrong (Mexicans ARE NOT A RACE!) but doesn't that really sound a lot like the calls of Aryanism?

Let us review that, after the battle of Midway, Churchill referred to the american race, did anyone correct him and say we are a polyglot collection a non race

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: No, they did not, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE....Even a great man like Churchill can make a mistake.....The U.S. is far from "A RACE" of people. We have to stop this "RACE" thing as an identity marker....we need to IDENTIFY BY NATIONAL CONTEXT.

[Athos]

we need to IDENTIFY BY NATIONAL CONTEXT.

Which is EXACTLY what the Mexicans do!! Foot in mouth again.

[Athos]

2)

U.S. never ANNEXED ANY TERRITORY, AND THAT INCLUDES MEXICO. The truth is much different: Mexico decided to attack the U.S. and this action precipitated the Mexican-American War.....the U.S. won this war and our troops marched down to Mexico City and right into the Mexican Emperors palace and presented him a document that effective said if you agree to cede the territories of California, Texas, and a defined area in between, we can have peace: The Mexican Emperor signed the damned document: END OF STORY! The U.S. didn't steal a damn thing, it was all entirely earned IN AMERICAN BLOOD when we beat an aggressor's (MEXICO'S) backsides black and blue!

#2 -------

"The truth is much different", you say. Well, I'll agree with that! Almost nothing you write in this #2 is remotely true. I think you invent these things and just spill them onto these pages.

Briefly, Americans settled in the northeast section of Mexico which was sparsely inhabited at the time and ruled by Mexico. When the Americans introduced slavery, Mexico objected (Mexico had previously abolished slavery, decades before the US did). Several battles ensued - long story short.

Now calling themselves Texans, they were helped by the United States in their fight against Mexico. The US defeated Mexico and by way of treaty ANNEXED what is today the Southwest, all or part of 9 states. There was NO emperor, NO emperor's palace, and the peace treaty was signed in a church. Texas would soon join the US as a slave state.

SO, YES, THE US ANNEXED A LARGE SECTION OF MEXICO!! END OF STORY!!

[talaniman]

Not the whole story though and as Athos points out very inaccurate. The west was won by self entitled white euro conquerors shedding the enemies blood and taking the spoils of victors like every other nation in the history of the world was built despite the glorification by those victors. Everybody has done it and we are no different Vac. It's the way of humans.

They called it manifest destiny in America.

[paraclete]

They called it manifest destiny in America.

I think the general idea is might is right and it took root in america. Not every nation thinks this way

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete, Talaniman, & Athos: We have to be very guarded right now: I know you don't like Trump but do you want to replace him with some war loving NEOCONS? Do you want something like Paul Wolfowitz whispering in the next POTUS's ear. The Military-Industrial Complex is still hanging around, looking to set up shop. Trump may/is a lot of things, be he is not a war mongering POTUS and he isn't a NEOCON. I think people forget how close we came to being continuously embroiled in wars for as far as the eye could see when GWB was in office: He was surrounded by NEOCONS! I feel like these types are still waiting in the wings, waiting for a time to strike! Trump sacked Bolton, so give him credit for doing that!

And the Media loves these conflicts! They honestly do.....it means ratings......Its so incestuous between all these groups.

[talaniman]

That's your excuse for supporting the dufus? The neocons are coming? The military industrial complex is waiting for more waes? You have got to be kidding? If bringing the troops home no matter who you throw under a bus is okay with you, so be it, If one guy can make a unilateral deal with dictators and screw our allies then say so. That's not good enough for me nor do I have an innate fear of those ghosts that send chills down your spine. Conservatives love to say how great we are and saved the world from tyrants but the truth is it was a joint effort that took YEARS, as we have joints efforts now that will take years.

You don't get to holler how great you are and spend all the loot on the military then wimp out like a coward when murderous dictators say so. That's totally screwed up and nothing to be proud of or make us great. If find it remarkable that the two defenders on this forum swear they don't support the dufus when their words say just the opposite.

[paraclete]

That's your excuse for supporting the dufus? The neocons are coming? The military industrial complex is waiting for more waes? You have got to be kidding? If bringing the troops home no matter who you throw under a bus is okay with you, so be it, If one guy can make a unilateral deal with dictators and screw our allies then say so. That's not good enough for me nor do I have an innate fear of those ghosts that send chills down your spine. Conservatives love to say how great we are and saved the world from tyrants but the truth is it was a joint effort that took YEARS, as we have joints efforts now that will take years.

You don't get to holler how great you are and spend all the loot on the military then wimp out like a coward when murderous dictators say so. That's totally screwed up and nothing to be proud of or make us great. If find it remarkable that the two defenders on this forum swear they don't support the dufus when their words say just the opposite.

Tal you must understand it is a problem with the system. It may have been alright in the agricultural age to have an executive with certain power because internal travel was difficult and those engaged in Congress needed to attend to their affairs. But today either you permit the President to make decisions or all his decisions must just be a rubber stamp of Congress. The President made a decision consistent with the platform on which he was elected. However, you want to criticise him for doing so because he didn't ask permission of a hostile Congress

Syria is not Trump's war, it was Obama's and Trump is perfectly valid to withdraw now he has persisted with the war on terror and dealt with a terrorist

[talaniman]

That's part of the problem Clete, ISIS popped up and had to be dealt with but rather foolish to think it's over once you cut off the head. You know how it works, someone always takes the bosses place in any criminal or loony organization.

Dealing with A terrorist in a den of terrorists is hardly the end of the terrorists is it? What of Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Africa. Just because you ain't there doesn't mean they aren't fighting and terrorizing. Just because the dufus leaves such a conflict doesn't mean the end of the conflict. If 2000 troops bring stability then what the freak sense does it make to give in to murderous dictators?

Obama's war? That's a cop out to what was really going on now isn't it? Least we forget the terrorist owned cities and land they leveraged to enrich themselves, increase their power and recruit other terrorist of bad intent. The land has been liberated and the dictators are moving in to claim their spoils which is okay with you, and the dufus for sure. Russia can have Syria and Assad, whether Turkey likes it or not, but those Turks slow to support the crusade against ISIS was happy enough to be the terrorist highway for such rabble.

Wonder who was buying all that oil that funded the caliphate?

[Vacuum7]

The ENDLESS string of U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. should end: Do ANY of you think that A SINGLE U.S. Soldier's life is worth protecting M.E. oil that the U.S. does not need? Do any of you want to put a price tag on that soldier's life? LET THE NATIONS THAT DEPEND ON THE OIL DEFEND THE OIL!

RIGHT NOW, ANY U.S. TROOPS DEPLOYED IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY! If you want troops in the M.E. so bad, why doesn't Congress vote on their deployment to make it LEGAL? Stop the talking out both sides of the mouth and VOTE ON TROOP DEPLOYMENT! And, you know why Congress won't vote on this, right? Because they don't want have their NAMES ON A VOTING RECORD FOR TROOP DEPLOYMENT, THAT'S WHY! THEY WANT ANONYMITY IN HAVING NO VOTING RECORD: ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM! No, Congress would much rather criticize Trump for having troops in the M.E. AO THAT THEY CAN SAY HE IS PROTECTING OIL and then criticize him again if he wants to pull them out....that way they get the best of both worlds.

Why in the name of hell does the left love all these long drawn out, protracted conflicts in the M.E.? Why does the left side ALIGNING THEMSELVES with the filthy Neocons on this subject? The left condemns the Neocons and takes their same positions when it comes to the deployment of troops in the M.E.

All this discussion would NOT even be happening now if the left didn't take the tool of Head Of State Assassination away from the CIA back in the post-Watergate Church Committee of the '70's. If we had not put the brakes on the CIA's capacity to kill the vermin of the world, we could have avoided Ayatollah and Saddam and any number of other problem children before all the crap got traction. The U.S. took the Marxist Allende out in Chile and they got Pinochet to replace him: That was a mistake.....We don't always get it right. However, its way better to take this route than it is sending U.S. Soldiers to die.

[paraclete]

Wonder who was buying all that oil that funded the caliphate?

Same people who were buying it from the caliphate, Turkey

[talaniman]

@VAC-The ENDLESS string of U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. should end: Do ANY of you think that A SINGLE U.S. Soldier's life is worth protecting M.E. oil that the U.S. does not need? Do any of you want to put a price tag on that soldier's life? LET THE NATIONS THAT DEPEND ON THE OIL DEFEND THE OIL!

Protecting a non producing oil field makes no sense to me, certainly not with highly skilled and trained special forces, but I suspect Guarding oil is just a cover story for keeping them in the area. Nobody depends on the oil from the fields we are so called guarding, and I doubt any company is running to get the stuff either.

RIGHT NOW, ANY U.S. TROOPS DEPLOYED IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY! If you want troops in the M.E. so bad, why doesn't Congress vote on their deployment to make it LEGAL? Stop the talking out both sides of the mouth and VOTE ON TROOP DEPLOYMENT! And, you know why Congress won't vote on this, right? Because they don't want have their NAMES ON A VOTING RECORD FOR TROOP DEPLOYMENT, THAT'S WHY! THEY WANT ANONYMITY IN HAVING NO VOTING RECORD: ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM! No, Congress would much rather criticize Trump for having troops in the M.E. AO THAT THEY CAN SAY HE IS PROTECTING OIL and then criticize him again if he wants to pull them out....that way they get the best of both worlds.

Much of what you say is true to a great extent. The congress is incompetent sycophants all to willing to not take a stand on anything the executive branch does. Cowards. The dems criticize, from repubs we get crickets. Nobody liked the Kurds being thrown under the bus, but that lip service produced no actions even though the Kurds played a huge role in getting Bagdaddy, and his so called second in command.

Why in the name of hell does the left love all these long drawn out, protracted conflicts in the M.E.? Why does the left side ALIGNING THEMSELVES with the filthy Neocons on this subject? The left condemns the Neocons and takes their same positions when it comes to the deployment of troops in the M.E.

It started with WMD, morphed into get Saddam, became the Syrian Civil War, and then chasing ISIS. They're still chasing ISIS. From 100,000 troops to 2000. You got facts to go with that rant? I do. The bring the boys home from Syria is a crock, since he just deployed 14,000 to Saudi Arabia...wait for it...to help guard their oil!

All this discussion would NOT even be happening now if the left didn't take the tool of Head Of State Assassination away from the CIA back in the post-Watergate Church Committee of the '70's. If we had not put the brakes on the CIA's capacity to kill the vermin of the world, we could have avoided Ayatollah and Saddam and any number of other problem children before all the crap got traction. The U.S. took the Marxist Allende out in Chile and they got Pinochet to replace him: That was a mistake.....We don't always get it right. However, its way better to take this route than it is sending U.S. Soldiers to die.

Like you said, we don't always get it right, and we sure don't want to add to Americans being targets here, or abroad. Maybe we should give this some thought before we bring back those covert assassination days. Seen a few in my day and the effects are profound and nation changing.

Kind of wild with that aren't you?

[Athos]

You got facts to go with that rant?

Our friend V7 is rarely troubled by facts. That's part of his charm.

[Athos]

3)

So you want to say that the "U.S. TOOK" the land we are living in from the Native Americans? Really? How do you know THEY WERE THE NATIVE AMERICANS? What makes them INDIGENEOUS? More likely than not, what we are calling "natives" and indigenous peoples actually came here some time before and EXTERMINATED the actual natives: Land Bridge from Asia ring a bell with you?

Yes, the "US took" the land from Native Americans. Exterminate is a closer word to what the Europeans did to the natives. I know they were native Americans because they were the first people to inhabit what became the United States. They are indigenous for the same reason. They arrived anywhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago. There was no one here then for the indigenous people to exterminate. Yes, Asian land bridge rings a bell with me. How about you? Do you have a bell that rings when you write words without any basis in fact? Apparently not. Otherwise you'd be deaf.

4)

Any description of people COMING TO AMERICA and occupying parts of it was conducted WAY, WAY, WAY before there was ever a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Lets see....first the Spanish came.....then the English came......then the French came.....then the Russians came.....the U.S. came later on....and the United States, even back then, was a mixture of different peoples. All the United States did was "UNITE" all the scattered territories under one umbrella.

Before "uniting", the US finished off the Native American genocide, and kept several millions Africans in slavery until wiser heads stopped the practice of slavery. The more you write, the weaker your argument becomes.

[Vacuum7]

Athos: This world is built on blood.....all of it....and that process started way before there was a United States. We STILL have not advanced enough in the United States to produce a DICTATOR like those pompous arse Europeans have successfully done over the years or Asians or Africans or South Americans....but there is still time left yet!

Officially: THERE WERE PEOPLE IN NORTH AMERICA BEFORE THE "NATIVE AMERICANS" as we call them today: The oldest skulls in America were found to be Caucasian, reference the following link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.htm

So, what this means is that the "Native Americans", as they are popularly called, came to the Americas (at least North America) and KILLED OFF/EXTERMINATED the REAL INDIZGENOUS PEOPLE who were already living here.

But you can't completely lay all the blame at the feet of the United States because the killing off of the "Native Americans"/Indians (not P.C., I know) was started in the America a long time before there was a UNITED STATES. Also, Slavery of Africans was started a long time before there was a UNITED STATES....It is true that once the United States was born, the killing of "Native Americans", as we call them, and the institution of Slavery continued...Slavery lasted in the U.S. from 1781-1865: that's on us.

[Athos]

Officially: THERE WERE PEOPLE IN NORTH AMERICA BEFORE THE "NATIVE AMERICANS" as we call them today: The oldest skulls in America were found to be Caucasian, reference the following link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.htm

That link doesn't exist. Wanna try again?

what this means is that the "Native Americans", as they are popularly called, came to the Americas (at least North America) and KILLED OFF/EXTERMINATED the REAL INDIZGENOUS PEOPLE who were already living here.

It means nothing of the sort. Your "caucasion skull" people could have simply died off. A single skull is not proof of who came first. It is simply the oldest skull to be found to date.

But you can't completely lay all the blame at the feet of the United States

I didn't. Read my post.

It is true that once the United States was born, the killing of "Native Americans", as we call them, and the institution of Slavery continued...Slavery lasted in the U.S. from 1781-1865: that's on us.

Quod est demonstrandum.