• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The planned collapse of America

poncho

Well-Known Member
Good job of totally avoiding the topic guys. I'd give ya a slap on the back but it would probably be interpreted as being terroristic behaviour so I'll just give ya all a hardy heave ho. :wavey:

Oh, and here's some more of that history stuff you musta missed NS. Trying to constantly jusitfy the unjustifiable will no doubt make ya miss out on alot of things.

Click Here and then
read the article.


There is but one justifiable goal of US foreign policy; it is a narrow goal as expressed in the United States Constitution: the preservation of our national independence. It can be stated unequivocally and emphatically that there can not be found in the US Constitution one shred of justification for the US government to "liberate" other peoples, uplift their societies, feed their starving masses, rescue them from tyrants, determine the nature of their governments, choose what weapons they may build and maintain, or change their regimes. The only moral and justifiable goal of US foreign policy is to work exclusively toward the nationalistic goal of the preservation of the Republic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NiteShift

New Member
betterthanideserve said:
The fact is it is simple logic since neither one of us speak farsi,although I am currently learning it via Rossetta Stone,we have to "according to Gods word ""let God be true and every man a liar".Pretty sound instructions really when you take into consideration that we are living in the last days. .This is not my fault study harder.:BangHead:

Well congratulations on taking the Rosetta Stone course. That is very commendable. It still doesn't tell me why we can read translations from other languages with confidence, but not those originally spoken (or written) in Arabic, as you state in post #19.
 

NiteShift

New Member
Ivon Denosovich said:
It's debatable that we want Iraq's oil? Greenspan doesn't think so. Neither does National Review (I trust you're familiar with the most widely circulated conservative publication in the States) in their response to Greenspan entitled, "What's Your Problem?"

ETA: the link has evidently expired but you can purchase the September '07 issue if you really want the cite, NiteShift. FWIW, very revealing (and rare) admission from the some of the nation's leading neoconservative ideologues.

Greenspan is a very intelligent man, but he did not form Iraq policy. He did say that at the time of the invasion, that he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

He also said that, "My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day passing through." That is a legitimate concern for an economist or a head of state.

In the end though, the US pays for it's oil just like everybody else. We have not stolen Iraqi oil.
 

NiteShift

New Member
poncho said:
Oh, and here's some more of that history stuff you musta missed NS. Trying to constantly jusitfy the unjustifiable will no doubt make ya miss out on alot of things. Click Here and then read the article.

I read the article, and really it is more of what we've been hearing all along. To paraphrase, "The US had it coming. The world hates us because of our foreign policy. Vote for Ron Paul."

Final word goes to you.
 

Ivon Denosovich

New Member
NiteShift said:
In the end though, the US pays for it's oil just like everybody else. We have not stolen Iraqi oil.

So, in your theory, twenty years from now the people of Iraq will own the oil wells in their borders?

If not, please define "theft."

On May 16, 2003, U.S. officials abandoned the plan to cede authority to a democratically chosen interim civilian Iraqi government (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and presented a resolution to the UN to give the United States and the United Kingdom broad power and to lift economic sanctions on Iraq, allowing the occupying countries authority to use oil resources to pay for rebuilding the country.

Keep in mind there is never any form of redistribution of wealth without lucrative administrative kickbacks.

Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets.


In fact, our corporate allies appear to be little more than opportunists:

This suspicion had already been a concern during the global protests against the war on Iraq. An audit found that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) may have overcharged the U.S. government $ 61 million, on contracts worth billions, for bringing oil products for the U.S. army into Iraq via a Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co.

( New York Times article here.)

Little wonder that BBC is reporting that $9 billion in oil revenue is already missing.

Even less wonder that geopolitical pundit Christopher Flavin of Worldwatch Institute told PBS's Margaret Warner, "[The] U.S. desires to control that oil."

Most, including the Brookings Institute concede that:

With oil prices hovering around a historic high of $40 per barrel, the need for Iraq's oil is more pressing than ever, not only for the people of Iraq but for the rest of the world.

... which means the US most certainly is going to take it. Bottom line: the people of Iraq are all but guaranteed to watch helplessly as companies such as Hilliburton or KBR rip it away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

poncho

Well-Known Member
NiteShift said:
I read the article, and really it is more of what we've been hearing all along. To paraphrase, "The US had it coming. The world hates us because of our foreign policy. Vote for Ron Paul."

Final word goes to you.
To paraphrase what your red white and blue "leaders" have been saying "They hate us because of our freedom and prosperity not because we've meddled in their affairs, overthrown their governments and caused much suffering among them, nor is because of our hubris and global hegemony".

If you read the article (and judging from your paraphrazation I doubt it very much) then you know that there is no authorization in the constitution for the government to act as it has for decades. So my final word to you is...if you really believe the government should...

"liberate" other peoples, uplift their societies, feed their starving masses, rescue them from tyrants, determine the nature of their governments, choose what weapons they may build and maintain, or change their regimes."

Then amend the constitution don't just ignore it. Otherwise you are either asking for tyranny or you are it's enabler and servant. And that my very good friend is about as unAmerican as it gets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So my final word to you is...if you really believe the government should...

"liberate" other peoples, uplift their societies, feed their starving masses, rescue them from tyrants, determine the nature of their governments, choose what weapons they may build and maintain, or change their regimes."

Then amend the constitution don't just ignore it. Otherwise you are either asking for tyranny or you are it's enabler and servant. And that my very good friend is about as unAmerican as it gets.

I'm curious. Does the Constitution forbid these things you listed?

God Bless! :thumbs:
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
steaver said:
Last I looked in the mirror.

You are telling me the constitution forbids charity to other countries in need?

God Bless! :thumbs:
No not at all. The constitution has nothing to say about charitable contributions to anyone including foreign nations. You can give as much as you like to anyone you choose a caution though, read the USA PATRIOT act(s) very carefully before giving any charitable contributions to anyone. They may be viewed as support for terrorist organizations.

The federal government on the other hand has no authorization to coerce your property and or labor from you to give to other countries whether they are in need or not.

The Constitution (including its Treaty Clause) was designed to accomplish--as to limiting the powers of the Federal government--what is contemplated with regard to all governments created by the people as their instruments: primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights (and the supporting rights, notably the right to property) according to the Declaration of Independence. It is a violation of this fundamental law of the people for the Federal government to deprive the people of their property by taxation in order to donate to foreign governments, or peoples, the funds thus obtained, or things purchased with these funds--whether or not sanctioned ostensibly by a treaty; that is, except to the extent that this is authorized by the words "common Defence" in the Constitution's Taxing Clause: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This means that any donation abroad of funds or things, military or any other kind, by the Federal government--in order to be authorized by the Constitution--must contribute substantially and directly to the "common Defence... of the United States," meaning the national defense: the actual, military, physical defense of the American homeland. Under the Constitution as amended, Congress and the President completely lack any power to act the benevolent role abroad with the American people's property--money or any other type. This is true as to all so-called "foreign aid"--whether military, economic or financial--however accomplished: by gift, or loan, or by any other device or method, and whether done openly, or by subterfuge. Individuals may, of course, give such aid out of their own property (money) as they please.

The words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause refer expressly to the welfare of the people "of the United States." This excludes the people of any foreign country. The fact that this provision does not give Congress a general legislative power, to provide even for the American people's general welfare in any way Congress sees fit, has been established earlier, citing as one reference The Federalist number 83 by Hamilton. The further fact that this clause grants no power, or authority, to Congress to provide for the welfare of the people of any foreign country--a self-evident truth: that is, one too obvious to need any supporting evidence--was discussed by Madison in the debates in the House of Representatives on January 10, 1794, concerning a proposal to grant funds for the relief of a group of citizens of France--refugees from the French possession, San Domingo--then being given asylum in Baltimore, Maryland, where they had recently arrived and were already being given relief locally. According to the report in a Philadelphia newspaper, Dunlap & Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser of January 14, 1794 (reporting the debate of January 10th), Madison expressed sympathy for the refugees and stated his hope that some way could be devised for their relief other than a grant of financial aid by Congress because, he stated, this would be beyond the authority of Congress under the Constitution. The newspaper's summary of his remarks is, in part:


SOURCE

Does that satisfy your curiosity? :smilewinkgrin:


 
Last edited by a moderator:

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No not at all. The constitution has nothing to say about charitable contributions to anyone including foreign nations.

I don't get it then. Why did you post charity (feeding the starving) as something unconstitutional?

God Bless! :thumbs:
 

Dagwood

New Member
NiteShift said:
I read the article, and really it is more of what we've been hearing all along. To paraphrase, "The US had it coming. The world hates us because of our foreign policy. Vote for Ron Paul."

Final word goes to you.

That's not the whole story, but it is a part of it; if the U.S. did not have bases in Muslim countries, things might not be as tense as they are now between America and the Muslim world.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
....... if the U.S. did not have bases in Muslim countries, things might not be as tense as they are now between America and the Muslim world.

True, but we do and that must be the way God wants it to be for His end time purposes. Isn't it something how God put all that needy world oil right there in such a tiny place with all that religious tension? I think He knows what He is doing!

God Bless! :thumbs:
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
steaver said:
I don't get it then. Why did you post charity (feeding the starving) as something unconstitutional?

God Bless! :thumbs:
Because that is one of the "justifications" the federal government uses when it wants to use power that was never granted to it by the constitution.

True, but we do and that must be the way God wants it to be for His end time purposes. Isn't it something how God put all that needy world oil right there in such a tiny place with all that religious tension? I think He knows what He is doing!
Are you saying it was God's idea for our CIA to use Iranians posing as communists to go around blowing things up and shooting people so as to blame it on the Iranian government in order to overthrow that government in 1953? God is cool with false flag terrorism? Is that what you are saying?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
From the Article mentioned at the top of page five:

This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.
This perfectly describes VICTORY - this
happens when we WIN.

IMHO then, Ron Paul is being represented
as anti-success & anti-victory. I'll check with
his people and see if they really like this kind of
stuff put on their candidate. :)

[edited to correct off-page reference]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

poncho

Well-Known Member
Ed Edwards said:
From the Article mentioned at the top of page five:


This perfectly describes VICTORY - this
happens when we WIN.

IMHO then, Ron Paul is being represented
as anti-success & anti-victory. I'll check with
his people and see if they really like this kind of
stuff put on their candidate. :)

[edited to correct off-page reference]
So, in other words...to the victors goes the empire? That'd all be fine and dandy but the Romans already proved you can't have an empire and a republic too. Sooner or later you have to give up one or the other. In our case I'd say it will be the republic that goes. Seeing as how we refuse to learn from history and all. :smilewinkgrin:

Besides the United States is probably the last obstacle standing in the way of world government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because that is one of the "justifications" the federal government uses when it wants to use power that was never granted to it by the constitution.

Just remember, the "federal government" is "we the people".

Like it or not!

Are you saying it was God's idea for our CIA to use Iranians posing as communists to go around blowing things up and shooting people so as to blame it on the Iranian government in order to overthrow that government in 1953? God is cool with false flag terrorism? Is that what you are saying?

No, but I am saying in response to dagwood's post........

True, but we do and that must be the way God wants it to be for His end time purposes. Isn't it something how God put all that needy world oil right there in such a tiny place with all that religious tension? I think He knows what He is doing!

God Bless! :thumbs:
 
Top