It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My theory about open borders and wars abroad. Please discuss, with civility.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 04:49 PM
When it comes to political madness in this country, I probably spend more time than most trying to analyze the motives of our government. I've looked at certain issues from multiple angles and somethings always lead me to one conclusion. It doesn't mean I'm right, it just seems to make sense.

When we have a strong belief about something, if it is fairly analyzed, it is usually based on information available. When somebody states a belief about something and that belief sounds outlandish, we have to step back and understand that that belief is coming form a perspective based on available information. It may be incomplete information or inaccurate information, but it is still information. There may be political bias which is just another source of information, correct or incorrect.

Two issues that I've tried to analyze and understand are the issue with our government's refusal to seal the border with Mexico and the other is our involvement with the many "micro-wars" going on around the globe. Briefly, I will state the conclusions I have reached and I would like to hear what you think, one way or the other.

Please don't pipe in with pointless criticism and no information or facts to back it up. That isn't constructive to the conversation. This isn't about partisanship. I view the two-party system much the same way I view the New York mob family vs. the Jersey mob family. Two sides of the same coin, if you will.

First, the border. My theory is quite simple; the "North American Union" is real and is in the works. At some point it will be ratified between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It is simply impossible to throw the switch, so to speak, all at once. It would cause civil unrest at best and an all-out civil war at worse. Their strategy is to slowly let the Mexicans infiltrate us to the point where the NAU becomes a moot point. There will be so many Mexicans here, that it's noting more than a formality.
That is my theory and it's not a knee-jerk theory. I have pondered this issue for a decade or more. One theory I hear is that the Democrats simply want the Latino vote so it's staged as a "humanitarian" issue. The theory about the Republicans is that they need the cheap labor, being capitalists and all, and they don't want to alienate big-business, etc.

I believe both of these are simply staged "causes"; in other words, they are a front that is put forward because the truth, the goal of the NAU, simply wouldn't fly, so both sides "allow" the commonly held beliefs to propagate. It gives the illusion of "two parties" with differing motives, supporting the myth that the two sides are fundamentally different.

With regard to the micro-wars and US involvement around the world, specifically Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and soon, Iran, it is my belief that these are nothing more than strong-arm tactics to get said nations to play ball with the UN and TPTB in furtherance of a One World Government. Period. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the motives have absolutely nothing to do with "humanitarian" efforts. We looked the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Saudi Arabia still beheads people for certain "crimes". Some countries will chop off your hands for theft. We celebrate "liberating" the Iraqi people, but in reality, we caused them over a decade of instability, death, destruction, illness. We polluted their landscape with depleted uranium which is still "hot" to this day. I won't get into an argument about how bad Saddam was. That has nothing to do with it. He was bad from the first day he took office and remained in power for 24 years. If we really cared about "liberating the Iraqi people", surly it wouldn't have taken 24 years.

Regarding Libya, I don't believe for a minute that "rebels" killed Gahdaffi. We know, as a matter of fact, that we contract unpopular military operations out to private "security" firms, such as Blackwater. Now, using a little common sense, I have to ask myself, how was it that Osama was able to orchestrate 9/11, from a cave in Afghanistan with nothing more than a satellite phone and a laptop, yet the U.S., with our 21st century technology, (satellites, CIA, NSA, military, spies, thousands of untold high-tech devices, was unable to find him for a decade? Then, in Libya, within a matter of months, Libyan rebels, with run-of-the-mill AK-47's and other relatively archaic technologies, were able to hunt down and kill Gahdaffi. Supposedly, with no assistance from the US. If we DID assist, then it was illegal because war hadn't been declared. To put it simply, we have no business getting involved in foreign civil issues.

These same types of things are taking place in Syria and Egypt and will likely have similar outcomes.

Furthermore, I believe Iran has been in our sights because they are another nation that wishes to maintain their sovereignty and wish to exercise their right to enrich uranium. The only evidence we have that they are trying to develop nuclear weaponry is our own propaganda machine, the mainstream media. Have you noticed that mid-east presence on internet forums and social networking websites is virtually nonexistent? You can argue that that is because their government has locked down their internet. How convenient for our own propaganda machine. We can blame them for being electronically isolated from the rest of the world. I find it strange that we don't have access to any Iranian news stations and other sources from inside Iran. It just seems too convenient that these countries that we are invading and supporting the overthrow of their sitting governments, are virtually isolated from the rest of the internet. Again, you may argue that their government has shut them down but I don't believe that is the whole story.

In short, if you don't want to get on the NWO bandwagon, we will unseat your government and nudge you in that direction. And by nudge, I mean invade your country and put in leaders of our choosing.

So, on those two issues, what is your take? Am I right, wrong or a little of both? What is your stance and what information do you have to support it?

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:12 PM
No opinions/theories on these issues?

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by axslinger
No opinions/theories on these issues?

edit on (8/25/1212 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:41 PM
I'm against the North American Union thing. I am certainly against the illegal alien invasion. Don't know what else to say really. It seems no matter what we say or do, it won't matter. It is so frustrating and doesn't look very hopeful at all.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:15 PM
They're all a bit chicken aren't they op?

Here's how we are getting reports of America and it's military infuence or lack of here today.......

SYDNEY (AFP) - The United States will not seek permanent military bases in Australia and nor would hosting one be in Canberra's interests, Foreign Minister Bob Carr said on Saturday.


We'll stay friends but we also wont be told who we can be friends with, as i ranted in an earlier thread

How about we have an open door policy on world military, they can come and train and meet and great and learn and then go home, they should even be allowed to bring their families too, showing we can work with many, not just some.
Alternatively, why do some countries have such huge militarys and don't lend support if it is such a serious concern? Perhaps it isn't such a concern to some at all, boggles the mind.

The issues in the middle East are far more complicated/simple than we are lead to believe and it's very hard to determine who wants what from them, but they 'seem' like a volatile people and have been for a very long time (the men are), always at war with someone or something, but It's a case of keeping secrets safe I think, not handing over something.
As a chick I would like to see their women in charge for a change and speaking out, perhaps they could maintain peace more effectively, perhaps that is what America thinks too? I don't know.
Perhaps outdated governing laws need to be re-looked at by all the people for their futures. Religion should not be a factor in those governing bodies, since most wars are religious. Keep your faith, but leave it at the door, for the good of the people.

The American people need to remind their authorities (calmly) they are in service for the people and not themselves only and the money men. I would hate to see America made the scape goat for another issue entirely, that would not be fair either, but they do act somewhat like the worlds teenager, who's been given a target and toys to play with.

How do the American people view their government such as it is? Alternatively how do the Russians view their governing body? How do the Chinese people see their governing body? Who's not speaking up and why?
Are they all just a bunch of practicing wiccans?

and why would we want America spear heading any attempt to bring all countries together when they are so bull headed and bombastic and lacking humanitarian strategies which doesn't involve bloodshead, their own or someone elses.
No body likes a bully, but...there are other countries hoping America implodes and it's people go truly off the rails, it makes their job easier too, so i guess they are really doing quite a bang up job of the whole scene.

Are they a big brother or mate you can rely on? or one that will stab you in the back and gloat over it with his mates, not even realising the bigger shadow hanging over their shoulders and waiting in the wings?

Faith is a fickle thing aint it?

It's not about honesty at the moment it's about keeping secrets and holding on to treasure, I don't see innocent parties anywhere of those in control at the moment, or who think they are. Some sit back and do nothing, others dive in and create more chaos and in the back ground where you can't see or wont, there is something else entirely.

It's serving someone's purpose for America to be in the Middle East, but I reckon it's not America or the Middle East.
This is of course just my opinion such as it is, so don't threaten me.
I'm sure our Prime Minister would be very open to discussion on these issues, as it's all about 'keeping the bastards honest.' (an Aussie Saying)

Peace. Love.. Compassion.... Truth...... in the day and the night, in the dark and the light.

I'm fortunate enough to be off to a bbq (sausage sizzle) with my family today, but those displaced general populations are in my thoughts for sure.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by axslinger

The thing about the porous border is that it's not just Mexicans coming through it. Where I live the illegals are not very often Mexican at all, but from various other Latin American countries. We have quite a problem with the Salvadoran gangs. I see a lot of folks, both legal and otherwise, from Ecuador, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala. And Peru, but most of them are here legally, from what I can tell. I don't know if that will still fit in with what you think is going on with the NAU, but I thought I'd put it out there for additional consideration as to what it might mean or fit in with your ideas.

With so many lucrative natural resources in South America, I would not be shocked to find out TBTB want all of the Americas united under centralized control of some sort. This is just conjecture, though and you said to present hard evidence, which I don't have, so this is about as far as I can participate in your thread.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:31 AM
About the US military engaging all these countries, there is no doubt there is profit for american power players in it. They get access to free oil (Libya, Iraq, Somalia), heavy metals (Afganistan, Somalia), water (Libya, Syria) and specialy gold (250+ tons stolen from Libya)... etc. Don't forget that Libya had outstanding debts coming to them from abbroad that will never be payed. Also, Qadaffi was trying to create an african gold backed Dinar to stop the vicious US/EU colonialism, and we all know what that means.

Now, that is just the oil driving the machine. The real reasons have much more with securing oil transit routes before the SHTF. Whenever there is a major war coming up, the middle east lights up like a light bulb. Every military needs to secure their access to oil or they are doomed from the start.

Hitler was late for the Russian campaign because he had to secure the oil wells of Romania first. A big part of their army was fighting to control the midde east/north africa, again because of oil. When Japan went to war with the USA, it was again because they were cut off from access to oil and their economy/military was bleeding because of that.

If you look at the US military policies in the last 10 years, it is obvious they are trying to cut off China and Russia from access to oil, and to control all the major oil transit routes. That is the reason Iran is next in line. The us can't afford to allow Iran to mess with oil transit, let alone to let them supply Chinas military with oil. After Iran is contained or bombed to oblivion, it would be only Russia left to fight.

Russia is developing in a very fast pace. Both in economy, technology and especialy military. They have realized that the US has destroyed their partners one by one, and Putin is being very open handed in establishing new partnerships. He needs need partners asap, and is doing everything he can to keep both Syria and Iran live and kicking. The same goes for China as well.

If you dont believe this whole PNAC style worldwide military campaign is aimed at Russia and China, just take a look at the recent developments in the US "defensive balistic missile shield", first in Europe (and trying to place it in southern Asian countries) and now in Fillipines/Japan. Once that shield will be in place and circle Russia/China, you can expect the sick and twisted US governments to become very trigger happy, thinking that that shield will give them an edge in an all-out nuclear exchange. It certainly will not, but it will be too late to explain that to them. That is why the Russians and the Chinese are pissed, mad as hell, and are franticaly preparing for the coming global conflict.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by axslinger

I agree on your facts about the borders not being 100% sealed of. I live in texas in a Border city, we have a shared resevour, a teaty signed back in the 1940`s errected the dam and bridges. When Obama opened trading with mexico, he made it easier for them to bring cargo into america, I guess we are suppose to buy their cr@p. We send our foods and goods to them, nice trade their ombres

AS for the wars Abroad, my theory is like the game of RISK, its a power play to gain global control of all matters, slowly over the past 20-50 years we have been surrounding our enemies countries by these micro wars, i think americas government actions detail their final intents. America is about to face off with a couple very powerful countries that have the deep desire to not submit to my government regardless the outcome of a all out war.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:11 AM
More fact for you all.

1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.

1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.

1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.

1995 Affirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.

1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories:
2 resolutions.

1999 Calls on the United States to end its trade embargo on Cuba:
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).

2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.

2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

2002 Condemns the killing of a UN worker from the United Kingdom by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.

2003 Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.

2003 Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.

2003 To end the US's forty-year embargo of Cuba.

2004 Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

2004 Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.

2004 Production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control.

2006 Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza.

2006 Calls for an end to the financial embargo against Cuba.

2007 Calls for peaceful uses for outer space.

2007 Calls for a convention against female descrimination.

2007 Concerning the rights of children.

2007 Concerning the right to food.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by axslinger

The point about the US involvement in microwars without open war declarations is also regularly published in European alternative media, not the mainstream media, which are owned by those same firms that want these wars.
What does seem new to me, and please do correct me if I am wrong, is some sort of awakening that is taking place in the US itself. In the past, US army flew over to Afghanistan or to Iraq thinking that they were defending liberty, democracy, human rights...and they seemed so proud of least that is the way we felt about it out here in Europe...and our soldiers joined...and some died.
But nowadays it is no longer a secret that Bush lied to the world about Iraq, and that the fighting in Afghanistan and in Lybia only serves material egoistic interests...and that no one knows the truth about 911...even the JFK murder is coming back to the headlines...we were so sure of the "truth"..if you dare say to someone that JFK might have been murdered by the CIA ..then people take you for a conspirationist;..
In Europe we are still convinced, or at least many of us are still convinced that this is all about a clash between two cultures, the western and the eastern islamic...that we are helping to democratize the middle east..that the arab spring were democratic revolutions..But when i read the posts on this website, and other american websites and some american famous people who are openly questioning 911, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Iran, Syria..then I feel some sort of new wind, some awakening, whereas here in Europe, you are considered as a anti-american, antisemite, even nazi..if you speak about such things...
I saw some facebook pages of american ex soldiers, who realized they had been #ed...i am now connected to many american fb pages, and I am happy to see how you people are waking up...faster than us here in Europe, always clinging to our old patterns, our old traditions..always resistant to change...
And I am also happy about you waking up because in the end it will protect you, save you from wars and agressions, that are not yours, but those of the powerful firms owning the oil, the banks...let them die themselves for their interests...
Maybe there is hope for all of us...that lies in your hands, you Americans, because only you can stop the war if you stop your leaders being the puppet of the arms-oil-industry lobbies that are dictating their law in the us. JFK tried..and died; But a US president must not die if his people support him.
Thank you for reading and do not hesitate to discuss.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:21 AM
Open borders are the result of a free society. You can't be free and build a fence to keep people in or out, it is that simple. You really want to end the illegal immigration? Then why don't you start electing officials that will do all that is necessary to reduce it? All that really needs to be done is simple, substantial fines for employers that hire them and enforce it. You make the risk far outweigh the reward and things will change. No need for fences, no need for an army on the border.

new topics

top topics


log in