• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Migration of South to North

Buzz62 said:
Did you really just come here to troll me?
If you have something intelligent to offer, go ahead. But please try to be a little less of a screaming partisan...at least in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, I came here to point out the many blinding flaws in your ideology of hatred.

See, here's the thing bud. When you start spewing about how much you want to ethnically cleanse Europe, you lose all right to complain when people point out the several dozen major problems with your fantasy.

There is nothing partisan about pointing out really basic history. Your entire premise is exceptionally ignorant, since you are arguing a position which even a cursory look at history shows to be utterly laughable.

Again....where was this supposed "inherent respect for democracy and law and order" during the Holocaust?
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, I came here to point out the many blinding flaws in your ideology of hatred.

See, here's the thing bud. When you start spewing about how much you want to ethnically cleanse Europe, you lose all right to complain when people point out the several dozen major problems with your fantasy.

There is nothing partisan about pointing out really basic history. Your entire premise is exceptionally ignorant, since you are arguing a position which even a cursory look at history shows to be utterly laughable.

Again....where was this supposed "inherent respect for democracy and law and order" during the Holocaust?
Click to expand...

"ideology of hatred"???
Ya know...considering your tone and candor, I'd have to surmise that it's really you who has a heart chalk-filled with hatred.
Hatred for Europe, hatred for North America, and now it looks like you also harbor a deep hatred for the actions of Nazi Germany.

I can understand the Nazi hatred thing except...well...you know...all the real Nazis are dead and gone now.

You continue to howl about my proposal that Europe undertake a major extradition project in order to sort this refugee crisis out, and do away with these "NoGo" zones all over the continent. So instead of posting a bitch-fight in this thread, what do ya say we ask these others who frequent this particular part of the DP web?

So people...Is it unthinkable to propose that Europe, perhaps with the help of Russia, send waves of military and social workers throughout Europe, in order to interview each and ever refugee claimant, make a quick decision yea or nay, and deport all of the "nays" in short order?
 
Buzz62 said:
"ideology of hatred"???
Ya know...considering your tone and candor, I'd have to surmise that it's really you who has a heart chalk-filled with hatred.
Hatred for Europe, hatred for North America, and now it looks like you also harbor a deep hatred for the actions of Nazi Germany.

I can understand the Nazi hatred thing except...well...you know...all the real Nazis are dead and gone now.

You continue to howl about my proposal that Europe undertake a major extradition project in order to sort this refugee crisis out, and do away with these "NoGo" zones all over the continent. So instead of posting a bitch-fight in this thread, what do ya say we ask these others who frequent this particular part of the DP web?

So people...Is it unthinkable to propose that Europe, perhaps with the help of Russia, send waves of military and social workers throughout Europe, in order to interview each and ever refugee claimant, make a quick decision yea or nay, and deport all of the "nays" in short order?
Click to expand...

Oh look, yet another post form you wailing about how mean you think you are being treated just because you want to ethnically cleanse Europe. Poor, poor you:roll:

I always think its downright hilarious how fascists think opposing your ideology in any way means you 'hate Europe". Sorry bud, I just hate thugs who want to ethnically cleanse Europe and who try and use hilariously ignorant historical claims(do you actually think the English and French didn't want to "plunder"? The English spent decades sponsoring thugs to predate on the Spanish merchant fleet hauling all that precious gold back to Europe) to justify fantasies nowadays.

The "real Nazis"? Sorry bud, but the thugs who want to continue in their footsteps are just as much Nazis as those who fled or shot themselves in 1945.

Yes I continue to "howl" over your ethnic cleansing fantasy and your delusions that "no-go zones" didn't exist before the recent past(another example of your laughable ignorance......the concept dates back at least as far as Northern Ireland in the 1960s, and likely far further than that). Your mindless hatred is only exceeded by your sheer historical ignorance.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh look, yet another post form you wailing about how mean you think you are being treated just because you want to ethnically cleanse Europe. Poor, poor you:roll:

I always think its downright hilarious how fascists think opposing your ideology in any way means you 'hate Europe". Sorry bud, I just hate thugs who want to ethnically cleanse Europe and who try and use hilariously ignorant historical claims(do you actually think the English and French didn't want to "plunder"? The English spent decades sponsoring thugs to predate on the Spanish merchant fleet hauling all that precious gold back to Europe) to justify fantasies nowadays.

The "real Nazis"? Sorry bud, but the thugs who want to continue in their footsteps are just as much Nazis as those who fled or shot themselves in 1945.

Yes I continue to "howl" over your ethnic cleansing fantasy and your delusions that "no-go zones" didn't exist before the recent past(another example of your laughable ignorance......the concept dates back at least as far as Northern Ireland in the 1960s, and likely far further than that). Your mindless hatred is only exceeded by your sheer historical ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yes OK now let's see if any other people wish to chime in too...ok?
 
Buzz62 said:
I'm mulling this over in my head and keep thinking, the English and French came to colonize, and the Spanish and Portuguese came to plunder. That, in itself, I think speaks volumes about the differences in the cultures. Such would have given the new NA colonists a distinct advantage with respect to infrastructure and capabilities. Thus might it be fair to say that the reason for initial exploration to the new world, produced an initial unequality between north and south, which the southern nations were never really able to dig out of?
Click to expand...

May be some truth to that. But here in the US we never had a clash of cultures -- disease and relocation to reservations characterized NA colonization of the US, while the Spanish co-existed or intermarried. In the north there was no infrastructure to take down, except in the Southwest and parts of the southeast. In Peru, some Spanish structures are literally built on top of Inca walls that rise five feet or so. (Funny thing, in one of Peru's churches, there is a painting of the last supper. Instead of the Paschal lamb, however, the Indian painter put a guinea pig on a platter.)
 
Nickyjo said:
May be some truth to that. But here in the US we never had a clash of cultures -- disease and relocation to reservations characterized NA colonization of the US, while the Spanish co-existed or intermarried. In the north there was no infrastructure to take down, except in the Southwest and parts of the southeast. In Peru, some Spanish structures are literally built on top of Inca walls that rise five feet or so. (Funny thing, in one of Peru's churches, there is a painting of the last supper. Instead of the Paschal lamb, however, the Indian painter put a guinea pig on a platter.)
Click to expand...

A guinea pig? Huh...wonder if they're good?
 
Buzz62 said:
A guinea pig? Huh...wonder if they're good?
Click to expand...

Am tempted to say tastes like chicken. Sort of does, had some there several weeks ago, gamier.
 
Nickyjo said:
This was BBQed, cooked over an open fire on the street in Cusco.
Click to expand...

cool.

So tell me something...do you really believe that all of these caravan people should be allowed to claim refugee status in the USA?
They say there are allot of women with children but, when I see pictures of the crowd, I see thousands of young men.
Do you think it would be wise to allow this? And why can't they claim refugee status in the first free nation they come to, as I understand they are supposed to do, which is Mexico?
 
Buzz62 said:
cool.

So tell me something...do you really believe that all of these caravan people should be allowed to claim refugee status in the USA?

++ Not sure I understand. They all can claim it but not have it granted.

They say there are allot of women with children but, when I see pictures of the crowd, I se e thousands of young men.
Do you think it would be wise to allow this? And why can't they claim refugee status in the first free nation they come to, as I understand they are supposed to do, which is Mexico?
Click to expand...

++ Some reportedly have, as also some have fled to other Central American nations. I was told that Spain had taken in some Salvadorans but got no confirmation of this. As it was told me by a group in Mexico which sheltered these folks, young men are the targets for forcible recruitment into the drug gangs, with them and often their families being threatened. The only folks I saw arriving at the shelter were young men. This was over a year ago, though, and it seems that families are moving as well as the situation deteriorates.

As to seeking asylum in Mexico, it should be possible, as Mexico ratified the treaty relating to refugees. My impression in interviewing asylum seekers for some years and reviewing thousands of application forms from dozens of countries is that the refugee basically makes two decisions: one, to flee, and two, the direction to run. Rumor, the presence of relatives in Mexico or the US, good and bad advice given by smugglers, etc., al, play a role. There is probably case law about spending time in transit countries making one eligible or not to apply in the US.
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Some reportedly have, as also some have fled to other Central American nations. I was told that Spain had taken in some Salvadorans but got no confirmation of this. As it was told me by a group in Mexico which sheltered these folks, young men are the targets for forcible recruitment into the drug gangs, with them and often their families being threatened. The only folks I saw arriving at the shelter were young men. This was over a year ago, though, and it seems that families are moving as well as the situation deteriorates.

As to seeking asylum in Mexico, it should be possible, as Mexico ratified the treaty relating to refugees. My impression in interviewing asylum seekers for some years and reviewing thousands of application forms from dozens of countries is that the refugee basically makes two decisions: one, to flee, and two, the direction to run. Rumor, the presence of relatives in Mexico or the US, good and bad advice given by smugglers, etc., al, play a role. There is probably case law about spending time in transit countries making one eligible or not to apply in the US.
Click to expand...

OK you obviously know allot about this. So do you think it would be wise of the Americans to watch this caravan coming, and extend refugee status to them all, as the Democrats are saying? Especially considering that, for a number of reasons, some of which you've helped me understand already, the southern nations in America, especially these the refugees come from, have been turned into...****holes. Won't these people bring the tendency to create the same mess, with them? If not...how and why?
 
Buzz62 said:
OK you obviously know allot about this. So do you think it would be wise of the Americans to watch this caravan coming, and extend refugee status to them all, as the Democrats are saying? Especially considering that, for a number of reasons, some of which you've helped me understand already, the southern nations in America, especially these the refugees come from, have been turned into...****holes. Won't these people bring the tendency to create the same mess, with them? If not...how and why?
Click to expand...


First, I don’t think democrats are saying extend refugee protection to all these people. They and the public, US and elsewhere have advocated allowing them access to a determination procedure. Second, the messes made of Central America often came from the top “ruling families,” as they were known, with numbers like 14 and 20 tossed around for El Salvador and Guatemala if I remember correctly. These were probably the more educated folks. That, plus ill-considered anti-communist US policies in the 70sand 80s, the arming of the killers, etc., messed things up. In El Salvador, the Christian Democrats were considered commies. The recently sainted Archbishop Romero was murdered by an educated right-winger. Translated to the US, I can’t see these forces messing things up here, given our rule of law.

The stats on immigrant crime are a- more noticeable, and b- lower for immigrants than natives. Fear of immigrant crime goes back to Irish, Germans, Italians, etc., highly visible minorities.
 
Buzz62 said:
Hi all,

I've begun this thread here because to me, it seemed like the appropriate place, and...I'm hoping to avoid input from the loud and wildly partisan. I'm really quite curious about how level-headed people feel and think about the current mass migrations from the southern hemisphere to the northern in both Europe and the Americas. We can, I hope, start with this;

Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America.
In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.

North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Both had, shall we say, slightly different reasons and methods for this colonization.
The northern nations produced huge advances in technology and prospered well. They enjoy a solid, yet imperfect, democracy and a strong sense of law and order. While there has always been a criminal element, it too has been conducted, for the most part, with a sort of begrudging respect for democracy and the law. For the most part...
The southern nations produced exploding populations and leaderships that are either ineffective or just openly corupt to the core. Oh and they produced allot of illegal drugs. They do not really display much in the way of respect for democracy or the law.
QUESTION: Do the cultures of the Spanish and the Portuguese, have a real influence of the cultures and societies built in South America? And if they do, which I suspect, then that poses a rather obvious question which is;
Why would the northern nations even want these people in their societies?
A very crass and tough question but, one that I think needs asking right about now.

Europe is the seed of the caucasian race of humans. They brought the world the Renaissance, modern science and technology, exploration and colonization. They too have an inherent respect for democracy, and law and order.
The Arab nations and African nations produced dictators and poverty. Desperate poverty. They also produced what appears to be absolute chaos.
QUESTION: To what degree can European influence be blamed for the state of affairs in Arabia and Africa?
Why should Europe allow hundreds of thousands of people from these regions, to migrate freely to Europe?

In both cases, are the northern populations "wise" to allow and/or invite this migration and how will it alter the societies, if these southern peoples are allowed to do so? Will it be "better"? Will there be an effect similar to that of what we now see in their homelands?

A final and parting thought on Africa...in particular. The northern peoples are currently in the process of trying to deny the African (and others) peoples a clear path to industrialization. The excuse used is climate change. Is this wise...at all???
Click to expand...

after the word "historically" so much of your post is factually wrong . . . . so wrong that your questions dont make sense unless this is all based on fantasy and you just want us to make up answers like you just made up history. Maybe study history first then ask a question based on facts. good lord i have read some whoopers but this is right up there!
 
Nickyjo said:
First, I don’t think democrats are saying extend refugee protection to all these people. They and the public, US and elsewhere have advocated allowing them access to a determination procedure. Second, the messes made of Central America often came from the top “ruling families,” as they were known, with numbers like 14 and 20 tossed around for El Salvador and Guatemala if I remember correctly. These were probably the more educated folks. That, plus ill-considered anti-communist US policies in the 70sand 80s, the arming of the killers, etc., messed things up. In El Salvador, the Christian Democrats were considered commies. The recently sainted Archbishop Romero was murdered by an educated right-winger. Translated to the US, I can’t see these forces messing things up here, given our rule of law.

The stats on immigrant crime are a- more noticeable, and b- lower for immigrants than natives. Fear of immigrant crime goes back to Irish, Germans, Italians, etc., highly visible minorities.
Click to expand...

You're saying the US had something to do with the assassination of a bishop?
I understand the anti-communist thing. They've always had this irrational fear of communism.
But murdering a bishop?
 
AGENT J said:
after the word "historically" so much of your post is factually wrong . . . . so wrong that your questions dont make sense unless this is all based on fantasy and you just want us to make up answers like you just made up history. Maybe study history first then ask a question based on facts. good lord i have read some whoopers but this is right up there!
Click to expand...

Oh marvie. Hey did Tiger introduce you to this thread of mine?

Look "J", I'm trying to explore my own ideas to find out if they have merit, or are on the wrong path.
I don't need you coming here polluting the thread. If you wanna have a bitch-fight, I'll be happy to argue with you elsewhere.
I don't want this one turned into a partisan brawl. I really want to explore these current issues honestly and rationally.
So unless you have more to offer than your typical pedantic pronouncements...
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Nope, doesn't look like anyone is interested in supporting your idea.
Click to expand...

Nickyjo does and he has a unique perspective that I'm quite interested in so...if you will excuse me...

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT:
I'm not here for "support" Tiger. I started this thread because I want to hear other points of view, without the usual irrational crap that so many fine posters bring with them. See...calm rational discussion can produce positive results. Name calling and mud slinging produces partisanship. I'm not interested in partisan mud-slinging here. So if you can't discuss this without your pale o' mud...please just peter off. If you think you can...give it a go. But sans your typical accusations and horse kaka...ok?
 
Last edited:
Buzz62 said:
And that's a valid opinion. A good point.
But is circumstances of the time dictate the development of a society, are you saying that indeed North America and Europe had a circumstantial advantage?
Click to expand...
I’m will get back to your reply soon.

Cheers!
 
Buzz62 said:
1.)Oh marvie. Hey did Tiger introduce you to this thread of mine?
2.)Look "J", I'm trying to explore my own ideas to find out if they have merit, or are on the wrong path.
3.) I don't need you coming here polluting the thread. If you wanna have a bitch-fight, I'll be happy to argue with you elsewhere.
4.) I don't want this one turned into a partisan brawl.
5.) I really want to explore these current issues honestly and rationally.
6.) So unless you have more to offer than your typical pedantic pronouncements...
Click to expand...

1.) no idea what you are talking about, this makes as much sense as your failed and factually wrong OP
2.) and i just helped you learn you are on the wrong path because your premise and foundation is factually wrong . .what part confuses you
3.) if facts bother you try and fantasy post board, its not my issue your OP is factually and historically inaccurate.
4.) partisan? facts dont have anything to do with partisan. If you want to be objective then and honest then you have to accept your premise is wrong and until its fixed anything derived from it is wrong.
5.) again the only way to do that is to start with HONEST and RATIONAL premise that is historically accurate. Right now you dont have one.
6.) wrong again FACTS are pedantic LMAO maybe not talk about history you have no clue about or use words you dont understand in the future and your posts wont fail so bad or post with honesty and integrity and when facts are pointed out acknowledge them.Until then your problem will conitnue and propel right left and center will point out when you are factually wrong and youll have to find a way to cope and not meltdown.

so here we are in the same place. Maybe study history first then ask a question based on reality and fact if you are looking for honest and rational discussion. Until you do that one cant be had since you posted fantasy. :)
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no idea what you are talking about, this makes as much sense as your failed and factually wrong OP
2.) and i just helped you learn you are on the wrong path because your premise and foundation is factually wrong . .what part confuses you
3.) if facts bother you try and fantasy post board, its not my issue your OP is factually and historically inaccurate.
4.) partisan? facts dont have anything to do with partisan. If you want to be objective then and honest then you have to accept your premise is wrong and until its fixed anything derived from it is wrong.
5.) again the only way to do that is to start with HONEST and RATIONAL premise that is historically accurate. Right now you dont have one.
6.) wrong again FACTS are pedantic LMAO maybe not talk about history you have no clue about or use words you dont understand in the future and your posts wont fail so bad or post with honesty and integrity and when facts are pointed out acknowledge them.Until then your problem will conitnue and propel right left and center will point out when you are factually wrong and youll have to find a way to cope and not meltdown.

so here we are in the same place. Maybe study history first then ask a question based on reality and fact if you are looking for honest and rational discussion. Until you do that one cant be had since you posted fantasy. :)
Click to expand...

yes yes...you're right.
Now please take your crap elsewhere.
 
Buzz62 said:
1.) yes yes...you're right.
2.) Now please take your crap elsewhere.
Click to expand...

1.) no its not "me" history and facts are right and your OP i not
2.) LMAO we understand you think facts, logic and accurate history are crap but you dont get to decide where I post. Like i said theres an easy fix for your issue. post accurately and factually...you're welcome and good luck!
 
Buzz62 said:
Nickyjo does and he has a unique perspective that I'm quite interested in so...if you will excuse me...

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT:
I'm not here for "support" Tiger. I started this thread because I want to hear other points of view, without the usual irrational crap that so many fine posters bring with them. See...calm rational discussion can produce positive results. Name calling and mud slinging produces partisanship. I'm not interested in partisan mud-slinging here. So if you can't discuss this without your pale o' mud...please just peter off. If you think you can...give it a go. But sans your typical accusations and horse kaka...ok?
Click to expand...

Oh look, yet another example of the guy who wants to ethnically cleanse Europe whining because he thinks being called on his crap is "mud-slinging".

Yet again.......where was this mythical "inherent respect for democracy and law and order" during the Holocaust?
 
Buzz62 said:
You're saying the US had something to do with the assassination of a bishop?
I understand the anti-communist thing. They've always had this irrational fear of communism.
But murdering a bishop?
Click to expand...

No, the US had nothing directly to do with Romero's death. I followed the sequence of events closely during that time. A month or so before he was killed, he called on president Carter not to send arms to the Salvadoran military. Arms sales had been prohibited under Carter's human rights policy, but there was pressure on him to renew them. That sermon was reportedly what sealed his fate. The day after that sermon, the church radio station that broadcast it was bombed. I think it was repaired by the time of his more memorable final sermon a month later, where he called on soldiers not to obey orders to murder peasants. He was killed the next day. Suspicion was that a former colonel, Roberto d'Abuisson was responsible. On his deathbed he confessed to killings, but I don't know if he mentioned Romero. d'Abuisson may have been trained at the School of the Americas (located in Georgia, I believe), and where the more paranoid of Latin American leftists thought Latin American police and soldiers were thought torture techniques by the US military. (Tho kicked out of the Salvadoran military, Roberto was connected to some conservative politicians in the US. Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative campus group at the time, featured him in their magazine.) What appears to have happened was that the SOA *did* train legit armed units that evolved over time into the infamous "death squads" that killed so many.

But Romero was a problem for the US. Here we had the US supplying arms and morally supporting a military that murdered people regularly, while each Sunday Romero's sermon broadcast the names and facts known about those killed, complete with some of the gruesome details. His death, about which some of the clueless US media could not conclude if it came from left or right, removed that problem. The Archbishop would have made a great Old Testament prophet. As noted, he was declared a saint by the Catholic Church a couple of weeks ago.

Finally, as to the US's anti-communism at this time, a conservative intellectual whose name I forgot, wrote an article in which she distinguished between communist tyranny and right wing tyranny. She suggested the the US support the latter, as "moderately repressive" and criticized the Carter administration for its criticism of them. The thesis is that communism is permanent, something a people never escape, while right-wing dictatorships evolve. This produced written guffaws, with comentators wondering if torture by a right-handed person was easier to bear than torture by a lefty. She didn't foresee Lech Walesa in Poland and the events that changed the Soviet bloc, and as it happened the Commies folded before the fascists did. So the medieval notion that communism was eternal damnation far worse in its repression than right-wing dictatorships given that no one ever escapes hell took hold, and we supported regimes that would have put Castro's or the Sandinista's oppression to shame for the latters' relative moderation. For this cockeyed idea, Reagan named her UN ambassador. (Just remembered her name, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.)

In fairness, one must remember how the fifties and McCarthyism affected the US, and how easily it was revived. (My favorite 1950s story: a woman officially changed her last name from Allred to Allgood. Strange that the GOP color is now red.) Politicians actually talked in fear about how leftist Nicaragua was just a 2-3 day drive from the US. The current fear of invasion from Central America has precedent, with much the same usual suspects stoking it.
 
Nickyjo said:
No, the US had nothing directly to do with Romero's death. I followed the sequence of events closely during that time. A month or so before he was killed, he called on president Carter not to send arms to the Salvadoran military. Arms sales had been prohibited under Carter's human rights policy, but there was pressure on him to renew them. That sermon was reportedly what sealed his fate. The day after that sermon, the church radio station that broadcast it was bombed. I think it was repaired by the time of his more memorable final sermon a month later, where he called on soldiers not to obey orders to murder peasants. He was killed the next day. Suspicion was that a former colonel, Roberto d'Abuisson was responsible. On his deathbed he confessed to killings, but I don't know if he mentioned Romero. d'Abuisson may have been trained at the School of the Americas (located in Georgia, I believe), and where the more paranoid of Latin American leftists thought Latin American police and soldiers were thought torture techniques by the US military. (Tho kicked out of the Salvadoran military, Roberto was connected to some conservative politicians in the US. Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative campus group at the time, featured him in their magazine.) What appears to have happened was that the SOA *did* train legit armed units that evolved over time into the infamous "death squads" that killed so many.

But Romero was a problem for the US. Here we had the US supplying arms and morally supporting a military that murdered people regularly, while each Sunday Romero's sermon broadcast the names and facts known about those killed, complete with some of the gruesome details. His death, about which some of the clueless US media could not conclude if it came from left or right, removed that problem. The Archbishop would have made a great Old Testament prophet. As noted, he was declared a saint by the Catholic Church a couple of weeks ago.

Finally, as to the US's anti-communism at this time, a conservative intellectual whose name I forgot, wrote an article in which she distinguished between communist tyranny and right wing tyranny. She suggested the the US support the latter, as "moderately repressive" and criticized the Carter administration for its criticism of them. The thesis is that communism is permanent, something a people never escape, while right-wing dictatorships evolve. This produced written guffaws, with comentators wondering if torture by a right-handed person was easier to bear than torture by a lefty. She didn't foresee Lech Walesa in Poland and the events that changed the Soviet bloc, and as it happened the Commies folded before the fascists did. So the medieval notion that communism was eternal damnation far worse in its repression than right-wing dictatorships given that no one ever escapes hell took hold, and we supported regimes that would have put Castro's or the Sandinista's oppression to shame for the latters' relative moderation. For this cockeyed idea, Reagan named her UN ambassador. (Just remembered her name, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.)

In fairness, one must remember how the fifties and McCarthyism affected the US, and how easily it was revived. (My favorite 1950s story: a woman officially changed her last name from Allred to Allgood. Strange that the GOP color is now red.) Politicians actually talked in fear about how leftist Nicaragua was just a 2-3 day drive from the US. The current fear of invasion from Central America has precedent, with much the same usual suspects stoking it.
Click to expand...

That's a nasty story, and I know the stupidity of the Americans when it comes to communism. But let's face it. All this is a reflection of the desires of the military-industrial complex. Greed-driven capitalists who had/have no allegiance to anything other than money and power. Life...anyone's life...means little to these monsters. But doesn't this sort of support the premise that Central and South America...for the most part...always seems to be a willing participant in the destruction of their own societies? It seems that, no matter who comes to power, the result is dictatorship and eventually the wholesale murder of anyone who dare stand-up to said dictatorships?

Capitalism does indeed have a very nasty underbelly, and its always justified by the 'free enterprise' argument. But America does not turn its military power on its own people. In the south, they do it like clockwork. So again...are these the types of people America want flooding into their nation?

IMO these caravan people should be forced to claim refuge in Mexico. Then they can freely apply for migration north to the USA. Each individual's merit will be examined, and those who bring value to the USA, should be admitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom