15 May 10 07:00, Roger Nelson wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> Seems to me that the Mexicans tried that around 1836 and didn't fare
 RW>> very well, even though they outnumbered the Texicans by 15 to 20:1.
 RW>> Oh, they won a few scirmishes, but they lost the war and a whole lot
 RW>> of territory in the end. Not to mention making heros of those who
 RW>> perished for Texas.

 RN> Wasn't that the treaty of 1829 the Mexicans broke?

Part of it. The governor proclaimed that slaves were now free in Mexico
(which included Texas). And the other factor was that government of Mexico
wanted the 'American' families living in Texas to pledge allegence to the
catholic faith. It was a well known fact that the US wanted to annex Texas
in 1819-29.

 RW>> Then, the Mexicans didn't learn that lesson and made the same
 RW>> mistake again, which is when the US aquired the Arizona and New
 RW>> Mexico territory.

 RN> Apparently they are out-propagating us this time to avoid bloodshed.

I consider all of them who stand against the immigration laws of the US
(and now Arizona) as criminals.

 RW>> I suspect that many National Guardsmen will have a hard time
 RW>> shooting at citizens, let alone handling the citizens shooting back.

 RN> It will be tough if it comes to that; no question.

 RW>> Remember the shootout in California where two bank robbers had a war
 RW>> with an entire police force who had help from the state police?
 RW>> Watching that on TV, I was cheering for the bank robbers because
 RW>> they had their s**t together and the police had no idea how to stop
 RW>> them (at least for a while). BTW, those two bank robbers used AK-47s
 RW>> that they modified to full auto, plus a lot of pistols. The best the
 RW>> cops could do was to rob gun shops of AR-15s (semi-auto copy of an
 RW>> M-16). Eventually the numbers and circumstances got the bank
 RW>> robbers, but only after the police figured out that the bank robbers
 RW>> probably weren't wearing armored shoes and socks.

 RN> No, I didn't see or hear about that one, but I don't give the news
 RN> much attention at this point in time because I have to prevent myself
 RN> from gagging every time a lawyer's ad appears on TV about the Horizon
 RN> oil spill. There is one who deftly avoids doing those ads and he went
 RN> to school with Joe.

That wasn't a news program, it was on live TV out of the area. The best
coverage they could do was from helicopters while avoiding the police
helicopters. Even so, the close ups were almost like being there.

RE: the oil spill - Shades of Michael Tuck as a reporter from the ABC (CH
10) affilate in San Diego. The Fox News channel yesterday had a comment on
what the BP PR-representative had to say about their oil spill. Like Tuck,
they weren't very friendly about it. I considered it as; so much for 'we
report, you decide' BS...

                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10