Es reicht dieser kurze Text, um die Hintergründe RICHTIG einzuordnen:

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the newfound prosperity of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied:

“That is simple. In the colonies, we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers… In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England.

America had learned the secret of money, and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

Therefore, Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money, and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies onto a gold and silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the First Bank War in America, which ended in defeat for the Money Changers, beginning with the Declaration of Independence and concluding with the subsequent peace deal, the Treaty of Paris, in 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America’s current monetary problems, look what happened to America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. In his autobiography, Franklin wrote:

“In one year the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause of the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

In 1774, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which required that a stamp be placed on every instrument of commerce, indicating payment of tax in gold-which again threatened the colonial paper money. Less than two weeks later, the Massachusetts Committee of Safety passed a resolution directing the issuance of more colonial currency and honouring the currency of other

Colonies. On 10 and 22 June 1775, the Congress of the Colonies resolved to issue $2 million in paper money based on the credit and faith of the “United Colonies”. This flew in the face of the Bank of England and Parliament. It constituted an act of defiance, a refusal to accept a monetary system unjust to the people of the colonies.

Thus the bills of credit [Ie., paper money] which historians with ignorance or prejudice have belittled as instruments of reckless financial policy were really the standards of the Revolution. They were more than this: they were the Revolution itself
Alexander Del Mar, historian

By the time the first shots were fired in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, on 19 April 1775, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coin by British taxation. Consequently, the continental government had no choice but to print its own paper money to finance the war.

At the start of the Revolution, the American colonial money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the war, it was nearly $500 million. This was partly a result of massive British counterfeiting. Consequently, the currency was virtually worthless. Shoes sold for 55,000 a pair.

As George Washington lamented:

“A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions.”

Earlier, colonial scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade, and counterfeiting was minimal. Today, those who support a gold-backed currency point to this period during the Revolution to demonstrate the evils of a fiat currency. But remember, the same currency had worked so well 20 years earlier during times of peace that the Bank of England had

Parliament outlaw it, and during the war the British deliberately sought to -undermine it by counterfeiting it in England and shipping it ‘by the bale’ to the colonies.

doku zu gladio:
http://infowars.wordpress.com/.....eerspart2/

“eigene unschuldige Bürger geschweige denn den Feind massenweise zu töten”

Das massenweise soll vor Allem für den Feind gelten, und bei einer Invasion Kubas kann man denke ich von Massen reden. Der Satz impliziert leider dass das “massenweise” auch für die Bürger gilt, und das ist tatsächlich so nicht richtig. Werde es klarer formulieren. Danke für die konstruktive Kritik.

“MASSENHAFTE TÖTUNG DER EIGENEN BEVÖLKERUNG”

Du kannst Dich allerhöchstens hierauf berufen:

“- Wir könnten eine Bootsladung Kubaner auf dem Weg nach Florida versenken (echt oder simuliert).”

Eine “Bootsladung Kubaner” sind nun allerdings nicht Teil der “eigenen Bevölkerung”.

Eine “Versenkung” führt außerdem nicht notwendig zum Tod (amerikanische Navys hätten die Kubaner nach der Versenkung ja “retten” können - der PR-Effekt wird um so besser!)

Es bleibt also dabei: die Hauptaussage ist falsch.

“Also ist Deine Hauptaussage falsch”

Warum sollte die falsch sein, nur weil nicht alle Pläne der Operation das Töten der eigenen Bevölkerung beinhalten ?

“Und wo bitte steht, daß die Amis bereits waren, Exilkubaner “massenweise zu töten”?”

Ja müssen wir jetzt definieren was massenweise bedeutet und ob es nur “viele” oder auch “eine Menge” sind ?

Der Punkt ist doch dass sie überhaupt Zielscheibe werden sollten, und es sich nicht gerade auf eine oder zwei Personen beschränken sollte.

Also ist Deine Hauptaussage falsch.

“aber bei die kubanischen Flüchtlinge in den USA sind durchaus der eigenen Bevölkerung zuzurechnen”

Und wo bitte steht, daß die Amis bereits waren, Exilkubaner “massenweise zu töten”?