Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I take that as a "YES" - forced re-location of the population is OK with you.
BTW - do you actually live in the United States?
You speak as if the US never forced people to relocate.
Ever heard of the Indian reservations?
Or the city neighbourhoods were the black Americans could not afford a house because their education (they had none) and job salary (they were slaves) weren’t as good as that of the white Americans? I guess the (white) American people in the times of the Wild West could only have been socialists?
ive never doubted the Americans position on terrorism, even in iraq. why? because i figured out that only about 40 million dollars worth of oil is bought by the US each year.. iraq has no where near the largest reserve, and was definently not a prime place to launch an attack (possibly one of the geographically farthest country in an area surrounded by US haters).
attacking brazil, saudia arabia, iran, canada, or just about anywhere else in the world for oil would have been better.
extremists are trying to take control. with a little support they could be demolished no? this isnt the middle east where islamic militants have huge funds, friendly countries all around and tonnes of "places to hide". so why wont any country help theM
Alot of *** kicking needs to be done, somalia seems to be a good place to restart the anti-terrorism moral
Well, why do YOU think no one will help?
Since you've said you believe that the US went into Iraq not for oil or profit but simply because of Saddam's terrorism, are you expecting the US or any other country to do the same to help Kenya?
You speak as if the US never forced people to relocate. Ever heard of the Indian reservations?
Or the city neighbourhoods were the black Americans could not afford a house because their education (they had none) and job salary (they were slaves) weren’t as good as that of the white Americans?
I guess the (white) American people in the times of the Wild West could only have been socialists?
I live in the present - you live in the past.
The requirement that Native Americans live on reservations was wrong - the American people recognized it - we learned from our mistakes. We do not "force relocate" anyone
The requirement that Native Americans live on reservations was wrong - the American people recognized it - we learned from our mistakes. We do not "force relocate" anyone
What do you call it when you take a person's way of life away and they are completely unable to support their family because of the US policies imposed on them?
What do you call it when you take a person's way of life away and they are completely unable to support their family because of the US policies imposed on them?
Does De-Ba'thification ring a bell?
My way of living have not been taken away. My ability to support my family have not been taken away.
Wrong, I just see clearly how the present is shaped by history and can thus predict more accurately how the future will be.
Your argument that America is 'free' or lives according the spirit of freedom better known as the American Dream is just that a dream/illusion. The so called 'American Dream' has always been built on the backs of the poor and unknowing; better known as the weak or gullible.
Between 1790 and 1830 the population of Georgia increased six-fold. The western push of the settlers created a problem. Georgians continued to take Native American lands and force them into the frontier. By 1825 the Lower Creek had been completely removed from the state under provisions of the Treaty of Indian Springs. By 1827 the Creek were gone.... The Trail of Tears - Cherokee Indians forcibly removed from North Georgia
My way of living have not been taken away. My ability to support my family have not been taken away.
Perhaps you could expand on your question?
I was simply trying to show that even though someone can claim to not support forced relocation, there are many ways of forcing someone to relocate other than directly.
And when we take someone's ability to earn any money away, such as we did with the De-Ba'thification of Iraq and when we immediately disbanded the Iraqi army of hundreds of thousands, we force them to either relocate to somewhere where they CAN, or do anything they can think of in order to provide food for their family, such as join the insurgency who will pay them.
The requirement that Native Americans live on reservations was wrong - the American people recognized it - we learned from our mistakes. We do not "force relocate" anyone
Btw, we (our government) are now recognizing the huge mistakes made when implementing those earlier Iraqi policies. Since it's a lot quicker than we did with the Native Americans, perhaps we're finally learning something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You speak as if the US never forced people to relocate.
I guess the (white) American people in the times of the Wild West could only have been socialists?
The so called 'American Dream' has always been built on the backs of the poor and unknowing; better known as the weak or gullible.
Between 1790 and 1830 the population of 
