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.
It hasnt been able to be solved by any other means, nor is there any sign of anything else working in the future.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I suggest that illegal immigration only becomes a military problem if it cannot be solved by other means. My suggestion from the beginning has been an economic solution. The motive for their coming here is, afterall, economic.
given the tremendous support by we the people of securing the border, why do you think the feds are attempting to do everything but that?
As for alternate ideas, I have to rest on our previous agreement that war is as unlikely as enforcement of current laws- I hesitate to use the word "never" in regards toe either however. What must be remembered is that the world fundamentally operates on the fact that people take actions, and actions have consequences. Governments don't take actions, laws dont take actions, decreees dont take actions- people do. Governments can only ask people to take actions. It's our perogative to make things happen as we like, particularly in a democracy. Whether we think we will or think we won't, we're right either way.
I agree with the Apache idea, but if we were to make an example out of a few, dont you believe that would act as a deterrent to the many?
No, I make a point by way of hyperbole, and the point is proportional response. Have the Army attatch a squadron of Apaches to the border patrol, and next time they shoot at our boys, blow up the guys who are doing the shooting. I'm not a pacifist- if a guy shoots at me I strongly advise him to make the first shot a hit, because I do believe in shooting back. But I believe in shooting back at him. I don't believe that I should shoot back at him, then also go into his neighborhood and kill his family and all his friends and burn his house down (have you ever seen Unforgiven? I love that line).
Hasnt the mexican government done that already?
And lets not kid ourselves, destroying the government and military of Mexico is destroying the people of Mexico. The lagging civilian casualties of such operations are well documented realities of post Desert Storm strategic analysis. Smart weapons level populations and leave cities standing. It's a great for enabling people like George Bush to tell you "what a good sense of Iraq" they gained by flying over it, but it doesn't make things any better at street level.
The last issue is what a war would do for the MIC. Do you seriously claim that the MIC has not advanced during these wars? The increasing role of private military contractors? The proposal for a "Civilian Reserve Corps" in the State of the Union? (Justin Oldham did a great piece on that for us, you should look it up).
There hasn't been, that was my point. Our government is responsible for this problem, first and foremost. They need to be held accountable, but the likelihood of that ever happening is nil.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
By which means has their been any attempt to stop illegal immigration Slackerwire?
I look at it as the mexican government is the primary reason millions of mexicans are coming here every year.
No offense, but I will not be rebutting your argument that Mexico's people area already as deprived of support as they would be if we completely destroyed their military and government. It is ridiculous on its face and history has spoken.
In regards to the military industrial complex, we are not only talking about profit but profit gained at the expense of America's best interests and also about influence. We're talking about the president suggesting that we privatize rear-area military functions, essentially giving private corporations control of a significant part of our force structure.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
On to the supposed parallels between the Barbarian incursions into Roman territory and illegal immigration.
(An aside on the subject of Irish immigrants: would you say that the Irish were America's barbarians in days past? You seem comfortable enough deciding that the Mexicans are barbarians.)
No, something else would have to happen to America for that kind of thing to become even remotely possible. Our "barbarians", of every ancestory, are domesticated.
Rome's problems went deeper than foreigners. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but let's be realistic. Let's not inflate one aspect of an imperfectly documented series of events and pretend it's perfectly applicable to a situation happening thousands of miles and thousands of years away among different people.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I appreciate your knowledge of history but this Hannibal analogy is getting way bigger than it's purpose.
This came up when I said there wasn't technically an "invasion", and you said that Romans might have claimed the same thing.
Using Hannibal as an example, I made the point that invasions of Rome were usually quite distinct.The fate that befell Rome will not befall America merely because of immigration, but as in the case of Rome will require a confluence of extreme misfortunes.
Originally posted by Conosimiento.
This is a ridiculous topic!
But interesting thought. I give you that. ... Ridiculous.