It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NEWS: Arizona Civilian Border Patrol Targeted by MS-13 Gang Members

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Nygdan,
What is the difference with what the MS-13 gang is already doing today?

There's not much of a difference at all.
as for the "vigilantes' minutemen, they are under orders to only use their weapons to protect themselves and or others.
That doesn't mean that they are not vigilantes. Whats going to happen is that some of them are going to get killed by ms13. They are going to beef up to 'prepare/retalliate'. Then ms13 is going to retalliate. Effectively, outside the rhetoric, you'll have cross border gang violence. MS13 admits to being criminals, the minutemen fancy themselves heros.



Are you saying that the Border Patrol would be overly taxed by "allowing" these citizens to protect the border and thus lend the Border Patrol assistance?

They are not assisting, they are going to be a distraction and an obstruction. Right now there is no violence. When there is, its going to be a distraction from patrolling the border. The government might be underfunding the border patrol, but the guys actually doing it are apparently pretty dedicated and try to do what they can. Now they're going to have to police and protect a bunch of yahoos who wanna shoot some mexicans.


That is like saying that Neighborhood Watch groups are overly taxing the local police departments.

Since they aren't organized and armed gangs that clash with violent criminals, the analogy is inaccurate.


Or are you saying that it is okay to allow this behavior by the gang should be allowed to continue

if I was in charge I'd say protect the border from illegals as if they were an invading army, or at least round up everyone possible, lock them up in those rex program camps, fine them and their families for comming to the US, and force mexico to pay for their confinement, either out of their pocket or by following and collecting from them and their families. Garnish their wages upon eventual prison release and deportation to mexico. Make comming to the US economically unviable for them.
Of course, I'd also say that this would go hand in hand with a much more streamlined immigration system that encourages even more immigration.

MS13, specifcally, should be hounded out of the US, across the rio grande all the way to El Salvador where they stem from, ala Blackjack Pershing.



I am sorry, until the government steps up and admit that this is a real problem and starts to take steps to rectify the problem, then the American citizen needs to not only help the government maintain the security of our borders, but also the American citizen needs to step up and protect themselves, their loved ones and their property.

Rather they should focus on getting the state of arizona to beef up their own border patrol and be willing to pay tax increases to fund this. These vigilantes are going to cause a heck of a lot more trouble than they will stop, and they make the anti-immigration movement look like a bunch of racist loons. They might not be, but its certainly how they are perceived. They're going to extremes, they're seen as extremists.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
nygdan
Tax increases?! Uhmm..the so called homeland security budget was ripe enough, it's just being squandered. They need to spend that money to..I dunno..secure the homeland maybe?

I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

As far as sending MS-13 back across the border, it's going to be a while. There're a lot of them here already. ICE is making good progress, but there's only so much they can do. Of course, when they start house to house searches and curfews and random traffic stops and roadblocks, they're going to turn and look at us, the citizens, and say, "what, you asked for it."

It's a no-win situation at this point I think.

I've been saying, for some time, bring all American troops home, and station them on the northern and southern borders, and in the coastal ports and waters. Train them to be pleasant, smiling, sharply dressed ambassadors for the country, but give them guns, and scopes, and vehicles, and task them with keeping out all those from foreign countries who have no legal reason to be here.

Talk about making America safer... We need troops in our ports, on our borders, and back with their families who miss them very much, we don't need them slogging through hundred degree heat killing people who, if left alone, would reciprocate the favor.

Oh, but we need troops to guard private businesses overseas, like drilling rigs and refineries and pipelines, and to 'bring democracy' to the rest of the world. Hey, can we have some of that, instead of exporting it all?

What about that process to convert rubbish into oil? Clear out all the landfills and leave the middle east to anybody stupidly brave enough to tussle there. Hell, the amount of trash in Jersey alone could run the country for a decade.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The US-Mexico Border is about 2000 miles.


The border provisions in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, presented to Congress on Feb. 7, came less than two months after the president signed an intelligence bill that authorized the government to add 10,000 agents over five years, starting with an increase of 2,000 in 2006. The additional agents would almost double the Border Patrol's force of 11,000 agents, most of whom are deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border


That "doubling" leaves just 1 patrol person for every 1/2 mile



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
LA Maximus
Either you're a kid or a seriously confused adult.
You never thought of this issue before? Like, maybe if I, like, don't pay them money, they won't, like, you know, come here to make money..and stuff...Wow man. Just..Wow.
You EMPLOY six (illegal?) aliens and WONDER if you're part of the problem.


So much for your earlier statement to keep this thread "civil" to avoid it being shut down and now you make this stupid remark. All I was saying here was, I have no idea who is legal and who is not once Mexicans are in country and Im not sure how to go about asking my gardeners and maids for their green cards.

See what Im saying here?

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Walmart also pretended they did not know some workers were illeagle and so did a few prominant politicians that now can't get nominated for anything other than bus boy. You had better find out because a lot of americans now days will out you the first chance we get. If you hear a knock on your door don't worry it is just the INS. Oh and there are Americans and legal imigrants that will do the work but you may have to pay them a little more money.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Amen!

It is about time someone took a stand. Re-arm the people; Re-deploy the militia!

This is what the U.S. was built on, and what it should be defended upon.

Unfortunately, paper-pushing bureacrats and punk politicians would rather take the money that walk the talk. MS-13 is a plague - just as any other organized crime syndicate is. This is a first step to something that must be addressed.



-wD



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Can I join? Will start collecting money so next gun show I can buy a 50 caliber with stand and case and other cool things. Yes, told not allowed to carry rifle, but how many gonna listen? Ok, no rifle, what about a 12 gauge shotgun? Hell, this is gonna be fun! They doing this for just a month or forever? If forever, this summer gonna have a kick ass time. Hmmm, save money, get the 50 caliber, and then have it mounted on top of the station wagon. Come on, protect the borders since Bush is to busy invading other borders.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

If you want to increase a program then you have to increase its budget and that means cutting other programs or raising taxes. No one is going to approve a budget cut for any part of homeland security to cover this, especially since you still wouldn't be able to prevent terrorist from crossing the border.



I've been saying, for some time, bring all American troops home, and station them on the northern and southern borders, and in the coastal ports and waters.

And this makes the US safer how?The bombers and hijackers were in teh country legally. The gangs like ms13 might be stopped of course.



killing people who, if left alone, would reciprocate the favor.

Since when has that been true? THe US was attacked by saudis over what exactly, american troops in arabia at teh request of the arabs? If you remove the troops, then the terrorists find something else to complain about. Heck, they already state that its not just american pressence, its westernization and capitalism. The only way to prevent that is to install dictatorships in the west that will enforce isolationism and protectionism and set up centrally planned economies. Even then there's bound to be some madonna singles or marylin manson posters that make their way over there, or even 'decent muslim women' who come to the US to become porn stars or bikini models.

Appeasement simply isn't going to work, and its not even going ot be enforcable.


kenshiro2012
That "doubling" leaves just 1 patrol person for every 1/2 mile

Why is that insufficient? An armed patrolman every 1/2 mile means he only needs to be aware of whats going on a quarter mile on either side of him, if it was actually deployed that way. True, they'd need a reserve force to actually tackle any large movements across the border, but a pack of police dogs can stop a pack of people in small numbers.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
As tempted as I am to voice how much I hate gangs and how cool it would be to see their dead piled high on the road side when I turn on the news April Second, I think I'll take the more civilized approach to the issue.

What plans do the police and even national guard have for this? We have a small war shaping up in plain sight and if it is allowed to go uninterrupted by the government it will be a very disturbing thing for those of us who deep down believe that the government is on our side. Any decently run government would send police to ensure that the protestors stayed cool, and would have either appropriate forces (national guard if necessary) on hand to deal with any local filth who crawled out of the ghetto calling themselves "soldiers".

I can't help wondering- what's going to happen if the Minutemen follow the law and MS-13 doesn't, resulting in a lot of dead minutemen? Will it be allowed to slide? Honestly I think it would. I think we'd see surprisingly little legal retribution for the slaughter of the minutemen, and that we'd even see the far left CHEERING such an incident. I hope I'm wrong about that part- actually I hope I never have occasion to know if I was right or wrong. If I do turn out right though, there will only be one question left- "Where are the right-wing gun nuts when you need them?"



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you want to increase a program then you have to increase its budget and that means cutting other programs or raising taxes. No one is going to approve a budget cut for any part of homeland security to cover this, especially since you still wouldn't be able to prevent terrorist from crossing the border.


Secured borders and ports would fail to prevent terrorists from making their way into the country? How do you figure?




And this makes the US safer how?The bombers and hijackers were in teh country legally. The gangs like ms13 might be stopped of course.


What do you mean 'how?' How not? The bombers and hijackers got special State Department waivers, which were in direct violation of the standing policy to refuse entry to young males, without a means to support themselves. The State Department screwed up, and if we had punished them for that instead of just letting it go, perhaps it wouldn't happen so often. And The hijackers, as you may know, were alive after the event and seen/found/interviewed in several other countries. Let's not get sidetracked on 9/11, but it was a farce.




Since when has that been true?


Since the beginning of time. If you don't hassle your neighbor, he probably won't hassle you. If he does, you're emminently encouraged to crack his skull with your largest club. It's not so much a guarantee of safety (such a thing is illusion, nothing more) as it is a guarantee of righteous and justified retribution in the case of an attack. It would improve our position in the world community a hundred fold.



THe US was attacked by saudis over what exactly, american troops in arabia at teh request of the arabs? If you remove the troops, then the terrorists find something else to complain about.


And you know this how? Have you tried adressing their greivances? Have we tried protecting ourselves behind the safety of the oceans? No, you're assuming.



Heck, they already state that its not just american pressence, its westernization and capitalism. The only way to prevent that is to install dictatorships in the west that will enforce isolationism and protectionism and set up centrally planned economies.


They can hate us all they want, I couldn't care less. But if we signifigantly reduce their efficacy then we have won a small measure of comfort. What we're doing right now in the Middle East amounts to antagonism. The concept of a pre-emptive war is anathema to the ideals of a civilized nation.



Even then there's bound to be some madonna singles or marylin manson posters that make their way over there, or even 'decent muslim women' who come to the US to become porn stars or bikini models.


Like I said, I don't care how much they hate our culture, hell, I hate our culture sometimes. If we're not within striking distance, the issue is moot. Militarized borders would drastically reduce their ability to hurt us. Proper port security would help, proper Visa procedures would help.



Appeasement simply isn't going to work, and its not even going ot be enforcable.


So what's your strategy, pre-emptive anhilliation of their way of life because it contradicts our principles? You have no right to make that call. Nobody does. We have the right to protect ourselves, within the context of our national sovereignty, that's it.

LA Maximus
If you hire illegals, you're part of the problem, pure and simple. It's too bad you can't muster the courage to verify your employees' identities and legal right to work. The casual, flippant way in which you made the statement spoke volumes. You get all pissed off because they want to come here, and yet you aid and abet that decision by providing a no-questions-asked working environment. You want my respect? Earn it.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

... I have no idea who is legal and who is not once Mexicans are in country and Im not sure how to go about asking my gardeners and maids for their green cards.
Maximu§

You might try employing people from an Agency, there are plenty in southern california. And if you are having two inside and four outside then you are obviously well off enough to go through a proper agency that specializes in domestics. IT may cost a little more, but then it's better than having the possibility of legal action and fines. The Agency gets to handle the responsiibility of whether the employees are legal or not.

(+3points for proper use/spelling of the word 'whether')



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As tempted as I am to voice how much I hate gangs and how cool it would be to see their dead piled high on the road side when I turn on the news April Second,

Honestly, if there are any piles of corpses from this, its going to be dead minutemen. Should be the other way around, with dead MS13ers, but lets face it, the minute men are carrying pistols and haven't trained as an organized militia, ms13 are international thugs who wage war across continents and are heavily armed.




What plans do the police and even national guard have for this?

If the vigilantes get shot up, why should the US gov respond in full? Treat it as gang violence. They knew what they were getting into.


We have a small war shaping up in plain sight and if it is allowed to go uninterrupted by the government

The best way to disrupt it is to arrest any of the minutemen. That will prevent a cycle of escalating border gang violence.



any local filth who crawled out of the ghetto calling themselves "soldiers".

I don't think we need to refer to the minutemen as such.


I think we'd see surprisingly little legal retribution for the slaughter of the minutemen

I don't see much of a reason to go nuts retailiating either. When the crips jump onto blood controlled corners, the national guard doesn't get called in to avenge their deaths. No reason to treat this as very different.

If they want to patrol the border, all well and good. Forget about the first ammendmen, this is a second ammendment issue, the right to bear arms in well organized militias. They shouldn't be going into this unprepared. Apparently they aren't going to detain anyone either, just 'spot' and track them. Good way to get shot. If they do, well, in all honesty, I'm not going to cry any tears for them. They knew what they were getting into, they went in unprepared. If some one wants to martyr himself for something like this, go ahead and let 'im.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Am I the only one who has come to be at a total figgin loss as to how illegals get around this country?
Everytime I turn around I'm being asked for my social. I've had to leave a new job and go home to get my social security card because they just could not hire me without it! You sure as heck aint getting an appartment without a social either? And how in the world do you fill out a W-4 without letting the cat out of the bag that you're an illegal?

All I can figure is that people are just turning their back and giving the illegals special treatment. If that's the case, I think that in principle, I'm on Nygdan's side here. Somebody somewhere is making themselves a great big part of the problem- not even by omission- but by actively making exceptions for people who don't follow the law.

I think federal agents should stake out a few of those check cashing places here in Southern California that specialize in helping immigrants drain our economy and send our dollars to Mexico- build a huge dossier on how many illegals they've helped and how much money they've sent, then sue and bankrupt those places, subpeona their customers for the case, and when it's all finished send em all back where they belong.

Thats the cool tempered, nobody gets option. The other option is less civilized and stems from my belief that with the exception of great food, illegal immigrants have contributed nothing to American society but gang members and huge budget problems (because they are making use of various programs and services they don't help pay for).



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Secured borders and ports would fail to prevent terrorists from making their way into the country? How do you figure?

Because you cannot secure the borders and because the terror attacks haven't been committed by illegal aliens.




What do you mean 'how?' How not? The bombers and hijackers got special State Department waivers, which were in direct violation of the standing policy to refuse entry to young males, without a means to support themselves. The State Department screwed up, and if we had punished them for that instead of just letting it go, perhaps it wouldn't happen so often.
So they will arrange to get jobs with other members of the islamic community that are in the US illegally.

Terror can't be fought best at home. You can't secure the mexico-us border, you can't prevent small cells of terrorists from crossing it even if there was a wall, and even then you can't prevent them from crossing the gulf or any other number of hundreds of entry points. And none of it will stop people from legally entering the country and commiting acts of terrorism.


Let's not get sidetracked on 9/11, but it was a farce.

B/S. And if it was, then why worry about 'secure borders' at all?



Since the beginning of time.

It most certianly has not. THe most peaceful nations have been the shortest liveed and most violently destroyed nations.




THe US was attacked by saudis over what exactly, american troops in arabia at teh request of the arabs? If you remove the troops, then the terrorists find something else to complain about.


And you know this how?
Because they have stated that their greivances extend beyond mere troop pressence. Bin ladin was anti-western long before Gulf I.



But if we signifigantly reduce their efficacy then we have won a small measure of comfort.

How does removing troop pressence accomplish that? Are the palestinians, for example, more or less capable of destroying Israel today than before the wars? More angry? Certainly. More effective? Certainly not.

The concept of a pre-emptive war is anathema to the ideals of a civilized nation.

Barbaric countries can only fight wars when they are attacked. A civilized nation will recognize a threat and stop it, even if it means war. Preventative wars are certainly not anti-thetical to global order and civilization.



Militarized borders would drastically reduce their ability to hurt us.

So rather than fight an enemy abroad, you'd rather militarize and close your own society? You'd prefer the Patriot Act to supporting the lebanese and promoting democracy abroad?



So what's your strategy, pre-emptive anhilliation of their way of life because it contradicts our principles?

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. There is no reason to not attack countries that are openly working against you, such as iraq and afghanistan. THere is no reason to pull out of the middle east because of some backwards thinking wanna-be dictators and terrorists. Better to have troops overseas fighting guerillas than have laws at home that make the Patriot Act look 'too soft' and have barbed wire and gun towers on the borders or Paper Patrols between states.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Terror can't be fought best at home. You can't secure the mexico-us border, you can't prevent small cells of terrorists from crossing it even if there was a wall, and even then you can't prevent them from crossing the gulf or any other number of hundreds of entry points. And none of it will stop people from legally entering the country and commiting acts of terrorism.


I do believe it is possible, given the manpower of the US military, to secure the border. It might not be pleasant, but it's possible. The other option is completely open borders, I don't know if I like that option any better, but it is an option. I'll have to brush up on my Spanish vocab... Luckily I can roll the rrrrr's just fine.


What makes you say it's not possible? It seems highly plausible, given the soldier-border miles ratio.

Again, I'm not saying it's the only option, but I think doing nothing is..well..doing nothing.



..why worry about 'secure borders' at all?


Because of domestic issues like jobs, welfare, food shortages, water shortages, and education and healthcare, not to mention illness, non-native species disruption of native habitats, and taxes, to name a few.



THe most peaceful nations have been the shortest liveed and most violently destroyed nations.


While you are right, you're inferring something incorrect about my statement. I'm by no means a pacifist. Far from it, I'm a warrior. But there's a difference between attacking and defending, and any martial artist can tell you, it's far easier to let your opponent make the first move, so you can better formulate a strategy to defeat him. Some styles are all about the attack, just as some countries are aggressive, but eventually they overextend, and are destroyed.

We're overextending with our multiple agressive wars. We should be defending, bending like the reed and executing the global military equivalent of a "Celestial Dragon Grasping Pearl" attack on our enemies. True power is like water, it flows effortlessly around the boulder for centuries, and in the end, all that remains is water.



Because they have stated that their greivances extend beyond mere troop pressence. Bin ladin was anti-western long before Gulf I.


Osama was bitter because he was played, used, and in the end, abandoned by his CIA handlers. He was a pawn to be used against the Russians in our little chess game. So yeah, his grievances extend into the past, but the remedy for them is honesty, integrity, and accountability in American foreign policy.



How does removing troop pressence accomplish that?


Islamic fundamentalists can't shoot us from across the ocean. They can't plant roadside bombs, utilize mortar attacks, snipers, or suicide bombers from across the Atlantic. They would have to come here and confront us on our home turf, where we have the advantage.



Are the palestinians, for example, more or less capable of destroying Israel today than before the wars? More angry? Certainly. More effective? Certainly not.


Well, you're right about that. They are more angry and less effective. However, by that logic it would be best to round all males of fighting age up and put them in camps, the showers are that way... One must decide if the goal is efficiency or ethics. I believe ethics would win the war, even though efficiency is better at winning individual battles.



Barbaric countries can only fight wars when they are attacked. A civilized nation will recognize a threat and stop it, even if it means war. Preventative wars are certainly not anti-thetical to global order and civilization.


You're saying we should wage war to prevent war? A civilized nation understands that the most important thing is not the outcome, but the road travelled to get there. If we lower ourselves, as we have, to using torture, assassination, and other criminal methods, we are simply setting ourselves up as the next great tyrant. That's not a solution to the world's problems, just a solution to our immediate problems. We all need to be thinking about the bigger picture right now, because the clock is running out, and hope of a peaceful global society is dwindling.



So rather than fight an enemy abroad, you'd rather militarize and close your own society? You'd prefer the Patriot Act to supporting the lebanese and promoting democracy abroad?


Who says I like the Patriot Act? I would support any modification of current border strategy, in either direction. Open the borders or close them, don't say they're closed when they're very clearly open, it's nonsensical. If by supporting the Lebanese, you mean driving them towards another civil war, I have to disagree with your methods. The Christians will once again wage war on the Muslims, and it will be largely our fault for removing the stabilizing wedge between the two groups.



I said absolutely nothing of the sort. There is no reason to not attack countries that are openly working against you, such as iraq and afghanistan.


Afghanistan cut opium production and abused their citizens to do so, they brought tyranical theocratic rule to control years of bitter secularist rivalry between warring clans and ethnic persuasions. We stepped in, and heroin is flowing like mana from heaven, and if we want to keep the peace, we need permanent military bases there. That doesn't sound like a wise expenditure of American tax payers dollars to me. Then again, I stopped paying taxes when I stopped working, so this whole argument is theoretical, detached from my real needs.

When I argue for American policy, it's mostly for the benefit of those who rely on it. I take care of myself, one way or another, come whatever may.

Can you tell how dispassionate I am. Look..look..do you see?




THere is no reason to pull out of the middle east because of some backwards thinking wanna-be dictators and terrorists.


I agree, they are backwards thinking. However, if the people of those countries can't usurp them and institute responsible policy, that doesn't make it America's responsibility. All men are responsible for their own destiny.



Better to have troops overseas fighting guerillas than have laws at home that make the Patriot Act look 'too soft' and have barbed wire and gun towers on the borders or Paper Patrols between states.


Perhaps. I'm undecided, and in the end, unaffected. I think it would be better for the troops to be home. It would be better for their families. It would be better for the people our guys are fighting against. It wouldn't be better for anyone who disagrees with them...

But that's not our problem. Needs of the many...

I see three groups served compared to one group shorted. Sounds like a GO.



UPDATE According to this thread..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Mexican military has been put on standby, and are expected to be a part of this little April fiasco. Gets more complicated by the minute.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What makes you say it's not possible? It seems highly plausible, given the soldier-border miles ratio.

Because terrorists can legally get into the country. They don't need to deal with unreliable criminals like ms13 to get smuggled in. They can blend in naturally and easily. Infact, no terrorists have attacked and come over the mexican border. Not to say that that means they won't. I'll agree that there needs to be more security at the borders, its just common sense. But I don't see how its going to effectively combat terrorism.


Again, I'm not saying it's the only option, but I think doing nothing is..well..doing nothing.

I guess it comes down to lchoosing between essential liberties or minor safties.



because of domestic issues like jobs, welfare, food shortages, water shortages, and education and healthcare, not to mention illness, non-native species disruption of native habitats, and taxes, to name a few.

THe US economy is largely dependant on the illegal underclass, which pumps money into the system without withdrawing the major benefits. As far as welfare and schooling, well, kids born in the US are US citizens. The simply way to deal with illegal immigration is to make it unprofitable for people to come to the US illegally. That means rounding up illegals when they show up on the radar, not giving them licsenses, and the like. But even so, illegals provide a service. Look at what time of the year it is. Do you think all those companies employing them right now would even exist if they had to pay minimum wage and benefits and taxes and the like? I'm not saying it'll destroy the US economy, but I suspect it won't be as 'beneficial' as people seem to think.



it's far easier to let your opponent make the first move, so you can better formulate a strategy to defeat him.

In martial arts thats nice, in gun duels its not.


We're overextending with our multiple agressive wars.

There isn't even a draft. Or any real industrial mobilization. The US has huge war making potential. Heck, there are still large numbers of national guards units that haven't been sent overseas, and even larger numbers of troops in places like Germany where they're effectively functioning as a reserve. Besides, the Nuclear Stockpile prevents any major war from happening. The US just needs to be able to defeat countries that are armed similarly to Iraq. The US proved that it can defeat an entire field army in a matter of weeks. Putting down the resistance is obviously more difficult, but then again resistors can't accomplish much on their own anyway.


True power is like water, it flows effortlessly around the boulder for centuries, and in the end, all that remains is water.

The thing about the modern US army is that it does indeed conform to Sun Tsu's essential mandate of 'remaining formless'. Yes, a large part of it is in iraq, but it has a spectacular ability to marshall forces anywhere on the globe, and then spread throughout it with its incredible mobility. When iraq was invaded, the US forces were so mobile that they were in danger out outstretching their supply lines, which in themselves were competently able to reach across an entire country. The iraqi millitary meanwhile couldn't field themselves, they couldn't only hunker down. Thats the antithesis of what should be done in war. The US military dictates everything in modern warfare, and even still can almost allways have the element of surprise.
Then again, recruitment is down, and the military is having to 'push' the tours and offer big incentives to get people to re-up. So I think that there is still a large war making capability, even without drafts or even a widespread enlistment movement.



Osama was bitter because he was played, used, and in the end, abandoned by his CIA handlers. He was a pawn to be used against the Russians in our little chess game. So yeah, his grievances extend into the past, but the remedy for them is honesty, integrity, and accountability in American foreign policy.

Even if i pretend for the purposes of this discussion that bin ladin is a ticked off cia agent, it doesn't matter, because his supporters can't all be disgruntled former cia tools. And they are motivated by his rhetoric, and his rhetoric focuses on the evils of modernism and the encroachment of westernism on islam. A pullout of troops will not stop that. At worst it will allow these jihadis to takeover over there. Considering what bin ladin was able to accomplish with his personal finances, with the backing of a caliphate or union of islamic republics, there's no telling how much worse it can get. So troop pullout will not help the US. Jihadist rhetoric is, in many ways, like the socialist (or even fascist) rhetoric of the past, with all the concern about the materialists and monied powers.



They would have to come here and confront us on our home turf, where we have the advantage.

What good is that advantage? Better to have more attacks in iraq then to have roadside bombings down I95 and what not.



Well, you're right about that. They are more angry and less effective. However, by that logic it would be best to round all males of fighting age up and put them in camps, the showers are that way

The palestinians are the ones who put palestinians into camps. Agreed tho, we're not talking about the eradication of a people. However, if the choice is between occupation of their territories versus fighting in the 'homeland', is it not better to occupy them, rather than have the military occupy and monitor your own population?


You're saying we should wage war to prevent war?

A preventative war on the illegally re-arming weimar republic would've stopped world war ii. The japanese in wwii were also, in a sense, fighting a preventative war. They knew that it was just a matter of time before the US challenged them in the pacific, so they struck while the iron was hot. If they hadn't, then the US would've had its full arsenal to use to defeat them and it would've ended sooner. Sometimes its better to attack a threat than let it gain strength. It comes down to an assement of the likelyhood of eventual war and the benefits of fighting now versus later. The US, for example, was better off fighting iraq 'now' than after it had the embargo restrictions removed and had reconstituted its wmd programs.



Who says I like the Patriot Act?

I think that we have to say that if pulling out the troops doesn't stop the jihadis rhetoric (which it won't) then it won't stop the terror threat, and things will go far beyond the Patriot Act.


If by supporting the Lebanese, you mean driving them towards another civil war, I have to disagree with your methods. The Christians will once again wage war on the Muslims, and it will be largely our fault for removing the stabilizing wedge between the two groups.

Its not certain that there will be a civil war there. Why is leaving it occupied by the syrians any better?



We stepped in, and heroin is flowing like mana from heaven, and if we want to keep the peace, we need permanent military bases there. That doesn't sound like a wise expenditure of American tax payers dollars to me.

Thats an arguement for dealing with the current situation differently, not for leaving the taliban in power.



All men are responsible for their own destiny.

Which is why it would be irresponsible for the US to leave its own future up to jihadis and the domestic power struggles of the middle east.


The Mexican military has been put on standby, and are expected to be a part of this little April fiasco. Gets more complicated by the minute.

Oh crap, that was what this was about!

Indeed, however I think that that thread is more alarmism than anything else, the mexican military isn't going to fire on american civilians, certainly not with this media pressure. Heck, who is to say that they aren't trying to round up ms13ers on their side to prevent the fallout of a clash between them and teh minute men? Or providing cover for their own operatives invovled in illegal activities?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I saw you arguing in another thread and told you that you weren't making any sense. Well, I'm glad to see you are making sense once again.


No offense intended, honestly. You must have been asleep at the wheel that day, no worries, I sometimes find myself in the same position.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Because terrorists can legally get into the country. They don't need to deal with unreliable criminals like ms13 to get smuggled in. They can blend in naturally and easily. Infact, no terrorists have attacked and come over the mexican border. Not to say that that means they won't. I'll agree that there needs to be more security at the borders, its just common sense. But I don't see how its going to effectively combat terrorism.


Well, with the introduction of the terror watch list and no-fly list, it's a lot harder to get into the country through those channels. Of course, you can still fly in by private plane, or with State Department sanction. Obviously the country is never going to be 100% safe, that's not possible, but we should definitely be taking reasonable steps to prevent any attacks.



I guess it comes down to lchoosing between essential liberties or minor safties.


Well, if that's the choice, black and white, then I choose liberty. I'll always choose liberty. However, just because I think things like the Patriot Act are counterproductive, they present the appearance of action, but are not effective - that doesn't mean I don't condone greater vigilance on the part of law enforcement against illegals. I'm waiting for the roadblocks to go into effect, then we'll see the extent of this madness - that's another example of a proposal that is ostensibly for our safety, but only serves to restrict our freedoms.

I think much more can be done on a social level to combat the desire to come here. For example, if we legalized Marijuana, Mexico would have a very lucrative cash crop, as would the American citizens who are struggling to make ends meet. It's just one proposal, another might be to make areas of the desert impassable through means of physical barriers, to concentrate the influx of immigrants into streams at key points that could be better monitored.

I think a balance needs to be struck between rights and responsibility, that's the only way a country can maintain order. Right now, everyone wants their rights, and nobody even thinks about the responsibility that comes along with those rights. It's a two way street. There's also a big crowd that advocates responsibility for their neighbor, but take none themselves. It's hypocrisy masquerading as patriotism.



THe US economy is largely dependant on the illegal underclass, which pumps money into the system without withdrawing the major benefits.


They flood the service sector, which explains the growth there. They also work off the radar, doing day labor landscaping and construction. Those sorts of workers assist the businessman's bottom line but hurt the country.



In martial arts thats nice, in gun duels its not.


Actually, there is something to say for allowing your opponents finger to tense and sidestepping to return fire. They're commited to the shot, and you have some advantage in the angle of attack. But yeah, you're pretty much right on that account.



There isn't even a draft. Or any real industrial mobilization.


I'll get back to you on this at the end of June.




The US has huge war making potential.


Yeah, we do. It's unfortunate we don't have huge nonviolent conflict resolution potential. Yaknow? It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's purely efficiency in my mind. Animals engage in threat displays to save themselves the energy expenditure and injury of a fight, similarly we should spend more time thinking about ways to resolve what amount to theocratic disagreements without resorting to full scale running gun battles.

America and the Muslim world are like dueling theocracies at this point, Christians vs. Muslims, the last great crusade. Being neither a Christian in the modern sense, nor a Muslim, I have no part in the conflict. That explains my enormous disinterest in the rapture of the conflict that seems to have snared so many on this board and across the country.



Heck, there are still large numbers of national guards units that haven't been sent overseas, and even larger numbers of troops in places like Germany where they're effectively functioning as a reserve.


I actually don't have any numbers to present in that regard. I have no idea how many men are still held in reserve, could you post some figures if you have them? I'd be curious to know. And in any case, their capabilities will be stretched thin this spring/summer. We're looking at a very active flood season, fire season, and hurricane season.

It will be interesting to see how that shapes up with so many reservists overseas.



The US proved that it can defeat an entire field army in a matter of weeks. Putting down the resistance is obviously more difficult, but then again resistors can't accomplish much on their own anyway.


Mission accomplished, my rear. Yeah, principle combat was over, no more expectation of tank battles or large scale anti aircraft resistance, but the war is far from over. We're the Germans, they're the French, and we all know how that went down. They can win by simple attrition, and we can't fight with the gloves off in the same overt manner, because we'll lose support of the few citizens of Iraq who still want us there, despite the birth defects and infrastructure damage - those few are mainly interested in contracts and government posts to aid them in overcoming the rampant poverty of those around them. Once again, the almighty greed of man has turned a nation's people against one another.



The thing about the modern US army is that it does indeed conform to Sun Tsu's essential mandate of 'remaining formless'. Yes, a large part of it is in iraq, but it has a spectacular ability to marshall forces anywhere on the globe, and then spread throughout it with its incredible mobility. When iraq was invaded, the US forces were so mobile that they were in danger out outstretching their supply lines, which in themselves were competently able to reach across an entire country. The iraqi millitary meanwhile couldn't field themselves, they couldn't only hunker down. Thats the antithesis of what should be done in war. The US military dictates everything in modern warfare, and even still can almost allways have the element of surprise.


Well, you're right, they have tremendous mobility. And you're right, they did stretch their supply chain too thin, it was harrowing for a minute there, might still be - just because no reports are coming out to that effect doesn't mean it isn't still a problem. Last time I checked, the Iraqis could have pulled a Giap on us, and we would have been unable to respond. We had more than 600 (?) miles between base and advance forces, and in my book thats too far. The resistance seized on that, and started harrassing our supply chains and trucks, making many of the roads impassable. When not blowing up pipelines and twirling their mustaches of course they strategize.




Then again, recruitment is down, and the military is having to 'push' the tours and offer big incentives to get people to re-up. So I think that there is still a large war making capability, even without drafts or even a widespread enlistment movement.


Our fighting men aren't happy about that, that's for sure. Recruitment is way down steadily, and they're gonna need a new distaster to spur conscription. Watch for it...



So troop pullout will not help the US. Jihadist rhetoric is, in many ways, like the socialist (or even fascist) rhetoric of the past, with all the concern about the materialists and monied powers.


Well, you're right, they won't stop hating us. But just like you said earlier in respect to the Israelis and Palestinians, hating us and being able to hurt us are two completely different things. The fundamental difference in our ways of life mean peaceful coexistence is probably a pipe dream. So we have to make a tough choice between isolationism and genocide. I don't see the rivalry ending any other way.

Judging by the rampant deployment of DU, I'd say our military commanders chose the latter.



What good is that advantage? Better to have more attacks in iraq then to have roadside bombings down I95 and what not.


I don't see that happening if we pulled out of the region. I predict a lot of rhetoric, a lot of hot air, and very little substantive action. They basically want to take over the world, yeah, but it would take them centuries to even be able to think about coming over en masse.

If they want to attack us here, I think they'll find we react differently than they presume. Americans react well under pressure, we often come together and strengthen the community, that's been proven time and time again by natural disasters and war - 9/11 aside. That was a lot of racism and bigotry coming to the surface, but it was stoked and fired by our own government to manipulate public opinion.




The palestinians are the ones who put palestinians into camps.


What? I agree that other countries in the region denied the refugees, but Israel wouldn't accept them, so what, are they just supposed to blink out of existence?

They are in reservations, a vile term most American Indians are quite familiar with.



However, if the choice is between occupation of their territories versus fighting in the 'homeland', is it not better to occupy them, rather than have the military occupy and monitor your own population?


I don't know which would be better. Soldiers are a nasty bunch in many cases, high incidences of rape and domestic abuse, but that doesn't mean we can't change the makeup of the armed forces.

Not using criminals would be a good start. So would psychological testing to the nth degree.

If soldiers behaved properly, we could do away with police entirely. Have an armed, militia style military, more like it was back when we founded this country.



I think that we have to say that if pulling out the troops doesn't stop the jihadis rhetoric (which it won't) then it won't stop the terror threat, and things will go far beyond the Patriot Act.


Yeah, you might very well be right. I think the answer would be a bloodless coup where the US citizens take back control of their government. The Iraqis might not have any cause to attack us then, and radical Muslims would be hard pressed to argue with a utopia, at least in the global arena.

I think if every American citizen was housed, fed, clothed, and provided for in terms of basic medical services, the world would have nothing to complain about when we wish to export our style of living. But look, America isn't perfect. We've got substantial problems, and until we fix those, we shouldn't be telling anyone else how to go about their business



Its not certain that there will be a civil war there. Why is leaving it occupied by the syrians any better?


Well, the Syrians managed to stop the war and give equal representation to both sides, Christian and Muslim. I think they deserve credit for that at least. We've basically just incited the Christians against the Muslims, again.

If it doesn't end in civil war, I'd be surprised. The price of an AK-47 in Beirut skyrocketed something like 5 fold since the Hariri assassination. People smell war on the wind.



Thats an arguement for dealing with the current situation differently, not for leaving the taliban in power.


Well, just because you don't like how you neighbor cuts his lawn doesn't give you the right to cut it for him.


I don't agree with the Taliban, on anything. If they tried to impose their government on my neck of the woods they'd have furious opposition. We have a reasonable measure of civility in our country, it's about mid-grade in my estimation. They were much worse. However, that has no bearing on the decision to change their government for them.

They took power by force of arms, restricted freedoms, and made life a living hell for those who didn't agree with them. It was the responsibility of the Afghan people to change that, and given the chance they would have, in time.



Which is why it would be irresponsible for the US to leave its own future up to jihadis and the domestic power struggles of the middle east.


I don't understand this comment. How is the US in any way affected by the domestic policy of foreign countries? Other than monetarily of course, but that point would be moot if we'd just start housing and feeding people. Big business, big government, they were a means to an end, we've gotten some great innovations because of their efforts. Now it's time to put those inventions to work and rebuild the garden of Eden.


The Mexican military has been put on standby, and are expected to be a part of this little April fiasco. Gets more complicated by the minute.




Oh crap, that was what this was about!


Right?
I almost forgot.




Indeed, however I think that that thread is more alarmism than anything else, the mexican military isn't going to fire on american civilians, certainly not with this media pressure. Heck, who is to say that they aren't trying to round up ms13ers on their side to prevent the fallout of a clash between them and teh minute men? Or providing cover for their own operatives invovled in illegal activities?


As I understand it, most of the MS-13 members are thought to have been dispatched from California and Texas, meaning they'll be coming on the ACBP flanks, not across the border directly in front of them.

I think the Mexican military is simply ready to prevent any sort of international incident, but it could very well end up cauing one.

We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Well, if the damn govornment wont protect us, then its our job. But this sort of proves my point anyway. That govornment is useless, that its weakness to depend on the govornment for your safety and well being, that ultimately, it is your job and responsibility to keep you safe.

If these gangs show up, I hope they do get mowed down. id be very happy to see them get gunned down and cut to pieces. If the cops dont arrest them on the spot for showing up, then I hope to got they get turned into swiss cheese.

President Fox needs to be dealt with as well, and so far I havent seen anyone in DC with any balls to do the job right.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The US-Mexico Border is about 2000 miles.


The border provisions in Bush's 2006 budget proposal, presented to Congress on Feb. 7, came less than two months after the president signed an intelligence bill that authorized the government to add 10,000 agents over five years, starting with an increase of 2,000 in 2006. The additional agents would almost double the Border Patrol's force of 11,000 agents, most of whom are deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border


That "doubling" leaves just 1 patrol person for every 1/2 mile



Actually, it's not that small a number. With survelliance and communication devices, and adequate firearms, that's a pretty good force, don't you think?

It's not hard to survey 1/4 mile in each direction, really.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   


Actually, it's not that small a number. With survelliance and communication devices, and adequate firearms, that's a pretty good force, don't you think?


you are correct, if the land is fairly level and if the illegals are only crossing one or two at a time. Unfortunately, they come in groups of up to a thousand or more at a time. With the patrol men being spread out like they are, it is very unlikely that he would be much of an obstacle.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join