Author Topic: "I will get our troops home"  (Read 993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

noname

  • Guest
"I will get our troops home"
« on: December 01, 2009, 09:21:12 AM »
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007


An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

"We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24085.htm


You Get What you Vote For!
By Cindy Sheehan

"So, here we are four years, thousands of U.S. troops deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths later, and the Pope of Hope, the Dalai O'bama, the Nobel Laureate will soon be condemning thousands of more to the same fate and his supporters have given him permission to do so, no matter how many letters they write, petitions they sign or phone calls they make.

In the end, you always get what you vote for."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm



Americans Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade

by Glen Ford

"The U.S. set the stage for the Afghan (and Pakistan) war eight years ago, when it handed out drug dealing franchises to warlords on Washington's payroll. Now the Americans, acting as Boss of All Bosses, have drawn up hit lists of rival, "Taliban" drug lords. "It is a gangster occupation, in which U.S.-allied drug dealers are put in charge of the police and border patrol"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24082.htm

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2009, 10:51:48 AM »
In Flanders Fields

By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army


In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.



Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.


Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2009, 12:46:23 PM »
Lords of Opium (Adapted from Amoy Magic--Guide to Xiamen)

 He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition burns a picture to obtain the ashes. Chinese Proverb

For over a century, Western nations trafficked in opium on a scale that dwarfs any modern Colombian multi billion dollar drug empire, yet today we Westerners know little about it.  We don't learn about it in high school history--or even college, for that matter.  I had an American professor in Xiamen tell me that he thought the war was fought to keep China from exporting opium.  

Most Westerners by far opposed the trade.   Even the British opposed it.  The entire British parliament opposed the 2nd Opium War--and was dissolved.   In the 1880s, when the U.S. made it illegal for Americans to engage in the opium trade, a Chinese leader said, "This is the first time that I've seen a Christian nation act like a Christian country."  But the trafficking continued until, by the 1920s, fully half of Europe's Asian profits derived from opium.   While only a small minority benefited from the trade, that minority controlled the fate of half the world's population in China and India, and dictated Western policy as well.

Just Say No?    China, not America, started the first "Just Say No!" anti-drug program. Chinese leaders appealed to our sense of morality and justice, and the "Way of Heaven." The West responded with a "Just Say Yes!" campaign and two wars to implement it, and America's ex-President Adams made our first complaint against China's human rights by declaring that her refusal to import opium was a violation of 'the rights of men and nations.'

Before my quick overview of the Opium Wars, lets read "The Opium Den," from Reverend John Macgowan's "The Story of the Amoy Mission" (1889, p.180).

 

"The shops today are all busy, for customers crowd into them during the busiest hours of the fair. But how is it that, interspersed amongst them, there are so many houses with bamboo screens hanging in front of the open doors? Let us enter one, for it is not a private house. It is an opium den. We put the screen aside, and come into a dimly lighted room, with a broad bench running round the sides of it. Little lamps are placed at various intervals, and men are reclining beside them. Some are asleep, and most ghastly do they look with their haggard, opium-hued faces. They are stretched on their backs, and they seem as if they were corpses. They don't appear like men whose spirits are wandering in fairy land, and are entranced with gorgeous scenes of beauty, such as the opium smoker is said to enjoy… One man smiles at me [and says], "This comes from your country, doesn't it?" I feel distressed, for I know he does but express the common opinion that all opium comes from England. But this opium den is an unsavoury place to be in. The close, horrid smell, the ghastly figures ranged along the benches, and the sense of being in the midst of some of the very lowest of the population, are oppressive. We hear the sounds of voices outside, and we see the rays of the bright sun shining upon the bamboo mat, and we rush out of the dim, fetid place, with a sense of deliverance, into the open air."

But there was no deliverance for those inside.


My goal is always the same: to invoke the past as a shield for the future, to show the invisible world of yesterday and through it, perhaps on it, erect a moral world where men are not victims and children never starve and never run in fear." Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate (in "A Personal Response")

The Birth of the Opium Trade

European opium smugglers flirted with China's death penalty as early as 1729, for opium's immense profits were more addictive than the poppy. The only problem was supply, which Britain solved in 1756 by conquering Calcutta.


After an English census of China revealed 300 million potential "clients," the Crown awarded the Honorable East India Company a monopoly on the 'trade,' carefully avoiding the use of the word 'opium'—a face-saving subterfuge employed right into the 20th century. (For the record, the majority of British merchants and missionaries protested against Britain's foray into drug trafficking, but to little avail).

On Dec. 2, 1799, a distraught emperor penned an anti-opium edict, noting:

"The infirm and weak perish gradually from want and hunger, while the strong and vigorous become thieves and robbers, the ultimate ruin of all being thus equally certain and inevitable."

But Britain saw not ultimate ruin but a 2,000% profit on each 130 pound chest. The Company sold 3,000 chests in 1790 and 30,000 chests in 1836. Between 1820 and 1835 alone, China's addict population grew 50 fold.

Lord Hastings maintained that Britain's opium smuggling was carried out 'in compassion to mankind', but the Emperor wrote that foreigners,
"smuggle in prohibited opium, which flows and poisons the land. When this conduct is referred to the heart, it must be disquieting; when referred to reason, it is contrary to it."

After the Dao Guang emperor's 3 sons, including his heir, died of opium addiction, he ordered the viceroy at Canton to tighten up controls. He lambasted Britain as "a Christian nation devoid of four out of the five Virtues." Indignant opium smugglers demanded that Britain redeem her honor, but parliament urged patience, reasoning that the Emperor would give in when he saw the magnitude of the profits to be made. But the Emperor refused the part of Judas. He wrote,
"It is true that I cannot prevent the introduction of the poison; gainseeking corrupt men will, for profit and sensuality, defeat my wishes; but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people."


As the stakes grew, so did the smugglers' audacity. In Feb. 1832, Lord Amherst sailed up the coast from Canton to seek opium markets. In a Fujian harbor he assured Chinese officials that his ship was actually on its way to Japan from Calcutta and had been driven ashore by the storm. It was harder for him to explain away his crates of Chinese leaflets advertising for coastal trade outlets.


Lord Amherst's escapade was lauded in London, where the House of Commons sanctioned the production and sale of opium. Lord Shaftsbury later testified that the government not only encouraged the use of the drug but carefully studied the tastes of Chinese addicts to "inflame the temptation so as to ensure an ample demand."

In 1836, the angry Emperor issued yet another edict ending in "Tremble." An indignant Lord Napier ended his reply with, "Therefore tremble, Governor Lu, intensely tremble."

Governor Lu reluctantly dispensed with diplomacy and blockaded the river above and below the foreign merchants' ships, and a humiliated Lord Napier conceded defeat. When Napier fell ill, Governor Lu sent him to Macao, where he died, becoming a martyr to the opium cause.

Furious Westerners demanded revenge for Napier's death. Matheson, the premier opium merchant, lambasted the unwavering Chinese mandarins as "imbecile, avaricious and obstinate," and demanded that Britain force open more ports for free trade. Jardine and Matheson built sleek teak ships, armed them to the teeth, and sailed the coast, plying what Matheson persisted in calling the harmless 'merchandise China needs.'

Even as Britain promoted opium in China, she passed several laws forbidding its use in England. Western medical experts supported such dual standards by arguing that for Chinese, opium was "a harmless social family luxury," on a par with tea. The Deputy-Surgeon-General of Bombay would later claim that Chinese find in opium "a source of enjoyment, of comfort, of necessity, and of even a blessing." He added, "Opium is especially suited to the Chinese constitution, habits, and to the small pecuniary means of the masses."

A Western writer in the "Chinese Repository" (Nov. 1836, vol. V., p. 300) had different views. He accused traffickers of murder and,
"the perpetuating and encouraging and engaging in a trade which promotes idleness, disease, poverty, misery, crime, madness, despair, and death."

An Assam tea plantation superintendent wrote that to obtain opium, addicts "will steal, sell his property, children, the mother of his children; and finally even commit murder." Walter Medhurst, the London Missionary Society's tireless opponent of the opium trade, described the 'harmless' drug's effects:

"In proportion as the wretched victim comes under the power of the infatuating drug, so his ability to resist temptation is less strong; and debilitated in body as well as in mind he is unable to earn his usual pittance. Shut out from his own dwellings, either by angry relatives or ruthless creditors, they die in the streets, unpitied and despised."


Britain was unmoved. In fact, she transformed her sordid traffic into a moral crusade, arguing that opium was China's salvation, for without it the over-populated Chinese would grow poppies instead of food.

The Way of Heaven
In a poignant letter to Queen Victoria, Imperial High Commissioner Lin Zexu wrote:

"I am told that in your own country opium smoking is forbidden under severe penalties. This means that you are aware of how harmful it is. So long as you do not take it yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, such conduct is repugnant to human feeling and at variance with the Way of Heaven."

"The Way of Heaven," Lin argued, was:

"…fairness to all; it does not suffer us to harm others in order to benefit ourselves. Men are alike in this all the world over: that they cherish life and hate what endangers life. Your country lies 20,000 leagues away; but for all that the Way of Heaven holds good for you as for us, and your instincts are not different from ours; for nowhere are there men so blind as not to distinguish what brings profit and what does harm…"

But for Britain, the profit justified the harm. On April 6, 1843, the Times would sum up Prime Minister Robert Peel's position:

"Morality and religion, and the happiness of mankind, and friendly relations with China, and new markets for British manufactures were all very fine things in their way; but that the opium trade was worth to the Indian government £1,200,000…"

Reluctantly, Commissioner Lin gave the British a 3-day ultimatum, and after waiting a full week for a response, he blockaded the harbor. During the foreigners' confinement, Cohong merchants carefully preserved the Westerners' property from harm, and insured that their foreign prisoners wined and dined in comfort. Lin reasoned that if he treated his foreign prisoners with respect and courtesy, they would recognize the error of their ways, abandon the opium trade, and turn to legitimate pursuits. But Western newspapers trumpeted China's barbarous treatment of Europeans, and stoked up the war propaganda machine.

Up in Smoke
A sullen Captain Elliott surrendered 20,283 chests of opium, valued at £2 million. It took Lin six weeks to destroy it, and as gray smoke clouded Canton's sky, he noted of foreign observers, "I should judge from their attitudes that they have the decency to feel heartily ashamed."

But anger, not shame, reddened their faces. In July 1839, the British destroyed and scattered 29 Chinese war junks. Unsuspecting peasants rushed to greet British ships off TingHai on July 5th. In "Six Months with the Chinese Expedition" (1841), Lord Jocelyn described the British greeting:

"The ships opened their broadsides upon the town, and the crashing of timber, falling houses, and groans of men resounded from the shore…We landed on a deserted beach, a few dead bodies, bows and arrows, broken spears and guns remaining the sole occupants of the fields."

If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us."
.................................-- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

Rather than submit, city officials committed suicide, for as Waley wrote,
"It had not from the first any chance of withstanding the concentrated fire of fifteen warships; as well might one expect Hiroshima to have hit back at its attackers."

British troops immediately launched a protection racket ("security placards") by which families purchased immunity from plunder if they voluntarily surrendered their livestock. "The Chinese Repository" (1840) recorded:


The soldiers consoled their victims by plastering the town with proclamations encouraging the survivors to flock to Sui-Shan, where "opium is on sale very cheap—an opportunity not to be missed."

Surrender A devastated China surrendered. Under the Nanking Treaty (June 26, 1843), China agreed to pay an indemnity of £6,000,000 for the destroyed opium (three times its value) and cede Hong Kong to Britain. This settlement infuriated Lord Palmerston, who complained that six million did not cover the cost of the destroyed opium or the punitive expedition. The Times ridiculed this claim, arguing that Britain owed China compensation for "pillaging her towns and slaughtering her citizens in a quarrel which would never have arisen if we had not been guilty of an international crime."

The Crown countered critics by arguing that the war was over free trade, not opium. And Sir John Davis, who became governor of Hong Kong in 1844, declared that the Chinese weren't sincere about prohibiting opium, and that Britain had never forced the issue. He protested that ritain "only supplied the poison, which the Chinese were not obliged to take."


Hitchhiking Imperialism
When a large vessel has opened a way it is easy for a small one to follow.
.                                        Chinese Proverb

Western nations unanimously applauded Britain's victory.   America rushed envoy Caleb Cushing to China, with three gunboats, to conclude a treaty of "everlasting friendship." He told the Chinese,

"The late war with England was caused by the conduct of the authorities at Canton, in disregarding the rights of public officers who represented the English Government."

Cushing added that if China had not learned her lesson, "it can be regarded in no other light than evidence that she invites and desires [war with] the other Western powers...

A French diplomat followed on Cushing's heels with seven French warships in tow and similar demands for everlasting friendship and trading rights.

Though Britain had fought a war to protect her opium trafficking, opium was opposed by most merchants, manufacturers, government leaders and missionaries, on economic as well as moral grounds. One merchant proved statistically that the opium trade had destroyed legal commerce and that in "supplying the Chinese with an intoxicating drug, we are drying up their natural capacity to consume our manufactures."

Pottinger coined a stock answer: "If India does not produce it, other countries will." He added smugly that if the Chinese were truly such a virtuous people, they "would neither use the opium nor permit it to be smuggled."

China continued to resist the opium trade, and in the 1850s, Lord Palmerston warned, 'The time is fast approaching when we shall be obliged to strike another blow in China.' He explained, 'these half-civilized governments such as those of China, Portugal, Spanish America…require a dressing down every eight or ten years to keep them in order."

Dressing Down China – The Arrow War
The excuse for China's 'dressing down' came from Hong Kong, which teemed with Chinese criminals and pirates luxuriating under the protection of the Crown. Commissioner Yeh seized the Chinese ship "Arrow", and convicted twelve of its notorious Chinese pirates. The British furiously demanded the criminals' release, arguing they had been taken from a British ship entitled to British protection. Lord Derby ridiculed the charge:

"Chinese built, Chinese captured, Chinese sold, Chinese bought and manned, and Chinese owned. And that is the British vessel which is said to be entitled to claim the protection of a treaty by which British ships are exempted from the visits of the Chinese authorities."
Commissioner Yeh surrendered the pirates, but refused Sir John Bowring's demand for an apology. Britain now had her excuse for China's "dressing down."

With characteristic hyberbole, Palmerston denounced Commissioner Yeh as "one of the most inhuman monsters that ever disgraced a nation." On Feb. 3, 1857, Britain declared war because of China's "acts of violence, insults to the flag and infraction of treaty rights."

Parliament unanimously opposed the second Opium War, agreeing with Lord Derby's sentiment that the war was "the shedding of the blood of unwarlike and innocent people without warrant of law and without the warrant of moral justification." Lord Palmerston accused the dissidents of disloyalty to the Crown, dissolved Parliament, and went to war anyway.

When the Chinese refused to ratify the Treaty of Tiantsien, British and French forces attacked Beijing and burned the Summer Palace to the ground. Besieged from all sides, China succumbed, ending a full century of resistance. Opium was finally legalized, and imported at a lower duty than England, the proponent of "free trade," levied on Chinese silk and tea.

Scapegoat
The English now intensified a two-decade effort to convince Western public opinion that Britain had never forced opium on China. Mr. Gladstone, in the opium debate in Parliament on May 10, 1870, argued that the Chinese government had 'wisely' decided to deal with opium as a commercial commodity. Gladstone praised the opium trade as not only a source of revenue but of great benefit to China and India:
"This is one of the most remarkable cases which the whole fiscal history of the world presents. I do not suppose there is, or ever has been, a country…in which £6,000,000 of its revenue has been derived from a particular article [he still evades the word 'opium'], of which you could say with so close an approximation to the truth, without any violation whatever of political justice, that the 6 million was virtually and substantially paid by the inhabitants of another country who did not complain of the burden."


Born and Bred to the Opium Pipe
Westerners had long held the vast, ancient kingdom of Cathay in awe, but by the end of the Opium Wars, Chinese were beneath contempt, mere creatures born and bred to the opium pipe. It is ever thus, for gross atrocities, whether in China or Auschwitz or South Africa or Nicaragua or the antebellum South, can be sustained only by dehumanizing our prey and by canonizing ourselves. Britain argued that not only did the Chinese want opium but that their physical constitution required it, and that the British opium monopolies throughout Asia were a humanitarian service for the Chinese.

As the dragon sank into opium dreams, Shaftbury's prophecy was fulfilled: easy money killed honest money. In 1877, Mr. Samuel S. Mander wrote that of China's £12 million in imports from India, the 85,000 chests of opium counted for £10.5 million, leaving £1.5 million for legitimate trade."
Britain's mandatory substitution of poppies for traditional food crops ended with Indian mothers feeding their emaciated children opium to ease the gnawing hunger that plagued them from their beleaguered birth to their premature death.

In 1838, 800,000 Indians died in the Agra famine. Over 500,000 starved in 1860 in the Northwest, and in 1865-7, one million perished in the Orissa Famine – 1/3 of that area's population. In 1868-70, 1/3 of the Rajputana population perished of hunger.


http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2009, 01:26:02 PM »
And a new generation of leaders grows up... :mblush:



Getting to Know Chelsea's Fiancé
by Mike Krumboltz

14 hours ago

Chelsea Clinton recently announced her engagement to longtime boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky. The news inspired an avalanche of Web searches on Ms. Clinton, but those were small potatoes compared to the number of lookups on her betrothed.

Almost immediately, lookups on "marc mezvinsky photos" and "marc mezvinsky job" surged into the thousands. Searchers quickly discovered that Mezvinsky is an investment banker at a Manhattan hedge fund, and he comes from a family with strong political ties.

While the Mezvinksys aren't as powerful as the Clintons, they are arguably just as controversial. Marc's father, Edward Mezvinsky, served as a congressman from Iowa for two terms in the '70s. Later he was famously sentenced to prison for around seven years. According to blog from ABC News, Ed Mezvinsky was found guilty of fraud "after getting caught up in a series of Nigerian email scams." Yup, those email scams.

Mr. Mezvinsky didn't actually conduct the scams, but he did attempt to scam others in order to raise money to contribute to the "get rich quick" scheme. Again, according to ABC, Mezvinsky's mother-in-law was a victim, as were some of his closest friends. After serving several years in prison, the former representative is now a free man.

Marc's mother, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, is also no stranger to the public eye. She herself served as a Pennsylvania congresswoman from 1993-1995. Apparently, her political future took a turn for the worse when she voted to support President Clinton's budget "after months of publicly voicing her opposition to the bill because it did not contain enough spending cuts." According to official site from house.gov, Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky also worked as a television reporter in the 1970s.

The wedding, according to an email Chelsea Clinton sent to friends, is likely to be this coming summer. With four parents who all served in government, expect the toasts to run long.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93207?fp=1

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2009, 01:46:27 PM »
Quote
The so-called anti-war movement currently finds itself in somewhat of a quagmire: What to do when the man you raised money for, volunteered for, and yes, even voted for, actually fulfills one of his most repulsive campaign promises?

Admit that everything you know is wrong and hand over your right to vote to a thirteen year old?


Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12954
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2009, 07:28:15 PM »
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007
I thought closing guamato bay was the first thing he would do.

An example of how politicians think. It's so sad it becomes funny.
My country also send troops to Afganistan. Far less than the USA but that's not really the point. There was pressure not to stay after the agreed period ended. The political anwer was something like this: "Our troops will be replaced by EU troops"
Surely the time was extended. So the question was why that minister lied about withdrawl of the troops.
"No we didn't lie: The Dutch troop were withdrawn and replaced by Dutch troops which are from a EU country."

Perhaps Obama has withdrawn all US troops but send other US troops in their place  :laughing7:
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

noname

  • Guest
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2009, 09:36:47 AM »
I feel sorry for the sheeple who voted for this "man who speaks with forked tongue"...especially the anti-war movement...their champion and hero have become exactly what he said  he wouldn't be and has done exactly the opposite what he has promised...I hear that line from the Bible warning us "not to trust in men" clearer and clearer these days

for what its worth...first impressions always stick with me...
when i saw george bush the first time, the words "devil's imp" jumped out at me...I was shocked with myself at first to think along those lines and to "judge" a man before he has proven himself

with obummer, the first words that came to me was "snake charmer"

well...thusfar those first impressions have proven themselves to be spot on in both cases

Quote
I thought closing guamato bay was the first thing he would do.
sheesh ww...there seemed to have been so many "first things he would do"...all of which he still has not done...just the opposite...say one thing and do another

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8429
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2009, 06:41:39 PM »
 :cloud9: Interesting article about Britain and China, Molly.........the gainsaying spirit is alive and well in the world, still.  :sigh: Blessings....
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2009, 01:46:45 AM »
Wake up, America.  They are planning to bring in the New World Order by treaty, which is why Obama keeps referring to our Constitution as a 'charter'.  They mean our rights to be determined by international treaty, not by the Constitution of a sovereign nation.  Listen carefully to the words they use. IMHO



NEW WORLD ORDER: FIRST PRESIDENT OF EUROPE ELECTED



By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 1, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

While the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico pursue their goal of unification and the creation of a North American Union, Europe's nations have begun their unification process with the election of the first President of Europe.

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday -- and almost totally unnoticed by Americans -- European Union leaders named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the first "president of Europe" after a tough campaign waged against his opponent former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

While the office of President of Europe is still a work in progress, the idea of a unified Europe may instill more fervor on the part of American politicians who have a "global vision," according to Mike Baker, a political strategist..

"I did not seek this high position, and I didn't take any steps to achieve it," President Van Rompuy is quoted as saying. "But tonight, I take on this task with conviction and with enthusiasm."

Van Rompuy's appointment as the first European Union President -- while being ignored in the US -- is being heralded by the Internationalists such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Many believe that Van Rompuy's achievement is partly a result of the EU being based in his home country of Belgium.

"I think the European Union also expressed its gratitude for the work of Belgium and the constant support that this country at the heart of Europe has given to our common project," he told the European press.

During his acceptance speech, President Van Rompuy pledged to lead the EU through a process of "dialogue, unity and action."

"A negotiation that ends with a defeated party is never a good negotiation," he said. "As president of the council, I will listen carefully to everyone, and I will make sure that all deliberations turn into results for everyone."

The idea of an EU President was the result of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which took effect this month following endless debate and negotiations over several years. According to a European Union spokesperson, Van Rompuy is expected to serve as president for 30 months, replacing the six-month EU leadership rotation among the heads of its 27 member states.

But while the EU prides itself on being a club of democracies, the process of choosing its new leader was far from transparent or open.

"The people of Europe are getting no say, not even through their parliamentarians. Van Rompuy's new job was announced after a closed-door dinner for the EU's heads of state and government," Baker points out.

But Van Rompuy defended the legitimacy of his newly acquired office by telling reporters the selection was made by leaders "who were all democratically chosen."

"I was chosen on the basis of a treaty," he said. "The treaty stipulates the procedure. The treaty was democratically approved by 27 member states."

While Europeans are relatively open about there New World Order ambitions, President Barack Obama -- much like his predecessor -- is attempting to create a North American Union or Federation of North America.

When Obama flew to Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city for a two-day summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,many observers believed from the beginning that there was little chance of any agreement on how to stop illegal aliens pouring into the US or the flow of drugs from Mexico.

"Much like his predecessor — President George W. Bush — Obama failed to address the very real problem of rampant illegal entry into the United States. While bellyaching about guns coming into Mexico with phony statistics, the President never once mentioned criminals entering the US and creating havov in our cities," said political strategist Mike Baker.

In a personal meeting with Calderon, Obama applauded Mexico's anti-drug strategy, but Calderon told the President that he was concerned over delays in US financial aid as part of the $1.4 billion promised. The financial assistance was held back due to allegations of civil rights violations by the Mexican government.


"Mexican police and soldiers use brutal methods to stop illegal aliens who attempt to enter their country across their southern border. Unlike the US, at times Mexican authorities use deadly force against these illegal aliens, but at the same time they decry any actions taken to stop Mexican illegal aliens from entering the US. They are hypocrites," said fromer NYPD detective Michael Snolinsky.

During his Calderon meeting, Obama said he'd like to legalize millions of Mexican aliens but he told Calderon that there is little chance of Congress acting this year, since priorities like health care and climate policy are moving slowly amid heated partisan debate.

In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.

It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a "Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement," or a "continental approach" to Canada-US defense and security.

The law enforcement executive told NewsWithViews.com that the agreement -- defined as a Civil Assistance Plan -- was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

"This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities," warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau.

In Canada the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the US and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by Prime Minister Harper's administration or the Canadian military. The agreement met with protests and demonstrations by Canadians opposed to such treaties with the US.


"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-US relations and contentious issues like military integration," claims Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

"We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," he said in a press statement.


The military Civil Assistance Plan is seen by critics as a further incremental step toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations. According to the NORTHCOM press release, the plan "allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency."

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news173.htm

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8429
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2009, 01:54:46 AM »
 :cloud9: When Bush was in office, the Mexican army crossed our border 8 times in one year and hardly anyone batted an eye. It's obvious what they are doing, to me. Blessings....
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

noname

  • Guest
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2009, 09:33:47 AM »

President Obama's Secret:

Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter


"As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24105.htm


Obama's Af-Pak is as Whack as Bush's Iraq

"More occupation means less occupation."


--  Barack Obama's oratorical skills have turned on him, revealing, as George Bush's low-grade delivery never could, the perfect incoherence of the current American imperial project in South Asia. Bush's verbal eccentricities served to muddy his entire message, leaving the observer wondering what was more ridiculous, the speechmaker or the speech. There is no such confusion when Obama is on the mic. His flawless delivery of superbly structured sentences provides no distractions, requiring the brain to examine the content – the policy in question – on its actual merits. The conclusion comes quickly: the U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.

The president's speech to West Point cadets was a stream of non sequiturs so devoid of logic as to cast doubt on the sanity of the authors. "[T]hese additional American and international troops," said the president, "will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."
Obama claims that, the faster an additional 30,000 Americans pour into Afghanistan, the quicker will come the time when they will leave. More occupation means less occupation, you see? This breakneck intensification of the U.S. occupation is necessary, Obama explains, because "We have no interest in occupying your country."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24107.htm


Robert Fisk: This strategy has been tried before – without success

"Within weeks, we would see the Soviet Army securing Kabul and the largest cities of Afghanistan, abandoning the vast areas of mountain and desert to the "terrorists", insisting that they could support a secular, uncorrupt government in the capital and give security to the people. By the spring of 1980, I was watching the Soviet military stage a "surge". Sound familiar? The Russians announced new training for the Afghan army. Sound familiar? Only 60 per cent of the force was following orders at the time. Yes, it does sound familiar"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-this-strategy-has-been-tried-before-ndash-without-success-1833133.html


Offline fire walker

  • 300
  • *
  • Posts: 315
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2009, 11:16:55 PM »
Crikey - another political thread that has not yet been locked.  What a surprise!   :laughing7:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes it is surprising!  Being informed on current world affairs, staying informed on political and religious moves, propaganda, manipulation and deception to me is an important thing in our coming to the knowlefge of the truth, to be gifted in knowing what work in this world is the works of mans quest for unity in the flesh like what the Babylon of old had, and what the Spirit is calling us to come out of.

Fire Walker
If in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable.

                1Cr 14:19

Offline Raggedy Anne

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 726
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2009, 11:20:36 PM »
One could spend all their free time reading the various opinions on what others think is going on in the world and it would profit them nothing.    As my dear friend Carlene reminded me today - the minds of men are the bottomless pit.  Thanks, Redlettervoice for that timely reminder.   :HeartThrob:
Ours is not to make up anybody's mind, but to open hearts.
You cannot plough a field by turning it over in your mind.

Offline sparrow

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • I watch, & am as a sparrow alone upon the rooftop.
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2009, 07:31:05 AM »
One could spend all their free time reading the various opinions on what others think is going on in the world and it would profit them nothing.    As my dear friend Carlene reminded me today - the minds of men are the bottomless pit.  Thanks, Redlettervoice for that timely reminder.   :HeartThrob:

'tis true.
"I knelt to drink,
And knew that I was on the brink
Of endless joy. And everywhere
I turned I saw a wonder there."

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

noname

  • Guest
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2009, 09:45:21 AM »
Crikey - another political thread that has not yet been locked.  What a surprise!   :laughing7:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes it is surprising!  Being informed on current world affairs, staying informed on political and religious moves, propaganda, manipulation and deception to me is an important thing in our coming to the knowlefge of the truth, to be gifted in knowing what work in this world is the works of mans quest for unity in the flesh like what the Babylon of old had, and what the Spirit is calling us to come out of.

Fire Walker
I agree Fire Walker...when one put facts down to warn or inform people about stuff that might hurt them, or put them in danger its brushed aside as "a political post"...
If we are then to talk only about Jesus and the Kingdom of God...then people should go back to their Bibles and READ...for Jesus and the prophets have also forewarned the flock of danger ahead...was it not Jesus himself who warned the apostles that when they see Jerusalem surrounded with armies, that they should flee?
and this very act of forewarning not only saved the apostles but also the Church as a whole

when the evil shepherds lead the flock to the slaughter...should we keep quiet, or should we show out the lies and deceit?
when the watchman sees an army coming to attack, does he not blow the shofar?

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: "I will get our troops home"
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2009, 05:19:47 PM »

Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.




"and shall wear out" [the saints of the most High]

H1080
בּלא
belâ'
bel-aw'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H1086 (but used only in a mental sense); to afflict: - wear out.