US Army Wants land in Southeastern Colorado

[grandpa]

According to Kerry Appel, director of Cafe Rebelion:

The US Army is planning on taking from 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres from thousands of landowners in Southeastern Colorado in order to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) into the largest military training site in the United States. The army claims that this is necessary to train more soldiers to fight in Iraq and in future "robotic" style warfare, to be able to strike, from long distance, "at anyone, in any country, at any time". The current plans of the army are to try to find willing sellers for these hundreds of thousands of acres or, that failing, to seize the land by force, that is, through the condemnation and seizure of the land.

So, what are your thoughts on this? It sounds to me like the US government is trying to create a mercenary society and is willing to steal land in order to transform our country into a massive, sadistic cult of imperialism.

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition - Home

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/articl...70723220331420

The person designated by Ft. Carson Military Base to be in charge of public relations/media/answering questions/etc. is:

Karen Edge
Ft. Carson
719-526-5160

[5010]

There is a little bit of irony there, considering that the army was what got the people the land in the first place (back when it was used by indigenous folks). I agree it sounds like a bad deal for those unfortunate enough to own the land in question.

The point you ask to consider about imperialism is not simple. The ability to strike any country anywhere at any time is not necessarily imperialistic. For example: if a country prepares to attack the US and the army destroys their force then leaves them alone afterwards. Of course, the war with Iraq doesn't fit that example, as the US is trying to rebuild the country before leaving them alone and there is a question as to whether or not they will really be left alone.

[christibe]

I think they'd have better luck getting the land one state to the west. Colorado is not going to give in without a fight. The past few years living in Colorado has shown me that the people are too proud and independent to let the government come in and do that. (It is a red state, but by god, I even somewhat agree with their reasoning... and looking at the 2006 results, they are no fools)

Colorado is already kind of not too thrilled about housing NORAD and the USAF Academy, and Marilyn Musgrave is a horrible, horrible person, but she is pretty damn powerful in DC, for a Representative. And she isn't going to let that happen, apparently. Also, with the recent decision to dump nuclear waste in the Rockies, and with the cleanup of Rocky Flats finally complete, Colorado, especially with solid Democrat control of the state house, senate and governor's office, and especially S.E. CO, is not going to play party to it. At least, I hope they will be as vigilant as I believe them to be.

So, I am thinking that the Army will probably figure to look elsewhere for that land, because they need Coloradans to be just content enough for them to keep the huge institutions already in existence just enough under the annoyance radar. Logistically, it is the state with the biggest potential for federal government- interruption. It's distance from DC only strengthens that potential. And with Canada not much liking us...

but yeah, that's some scary shite.

oh right, 5010- not the army for Colorado, it was the cowboys. and spain.

[5010]

Quote by: christibe oh right, 5010- not the army for Colorado, it was the cowboys. and spain.

Good point. The army bits were done by non-US and then didn't Texas sell it to the US before joining?

[GHook93]

Quote by: 5010 There is a little bit of irony there, considering that the army was what got the people the land in the first place (back when it was used by indigenous folks). I agree it sounds like a bad deal for those unfortunate enough to own the land in question. The point you ask to consider about imperialism is not simple. The ability to strike any country anywhere at any time is not necessarily imperialistic. For example: if a country prepares to attack the US and the army destroys their force then leaves them alone afterwards. Of course, the war with Iraq doesn't fit that example, as the US is trying to rebuild the country before leaving them alone and there is a question as to whether or not they will really be left alone.

The taking clause protects the land owners. If the US does indeed utilize eminent domin, then the land-owners are handsomely rewarded.

I remember years back a co-worker of my Dad's told me of how he lost his property for the highway expansion program. They game him DOUBLE what his house was worth. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

I would love for the government to come to me and state we need your land here is $700K! That would be like winning the lottery!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 The taking clause protects the land owners. If the US does indeed utilize eminent domin, then the land-owners are handsomely rewarded.

Such a position overlooks both the big picture and specific issues, though.

First of all, does the government have a right to eminent domain?

Second, why should this right be used to create military training grounds?
Would you deem this as the best way to use the land--better than Cafe Rebelion's intentions?

Grandpa h.