Bush Not Aggressive Enough?

WMD · August 22, 2005, 3:23pm

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
In a nut shell they are trespassing, and your damn right I resent it. I would equate it to somebody coming into my house without my permission, & taking a shit on my kitchen table. I could care less where they are from. Mexico, Canada, Peru, Ireland, if they are here illegally they have broken the law & should be punished. Also IMO anybody that hires them should pay a huge fine & lose thier business license[/quote]

Businesses that get caught hiring illegals do pay fines and suffer other punishments.

Would you feel better if you had given them permission to come in your house and shit on your table? You make no sense. I think you are going to an extreme in trying to justify your hostility.

It would be really interesting to see what happens to the economy, especially in the service industries, if all the illegals were forced to go home.

WND

orion · August 22, 2005, 3:27pm

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
WMD wrote:

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration either. I’m pretty sure most of the people coming across illegally are not criminals (although some indeed are). WMD

Illigally: ad., contrary to or in violation of the law. In an illegal manner. Criminally.

My point is, if they are illegal immigrants, they are, by definition, a criminal.[/quote]

yes, but so what? You seem to think calling something “illegal” is a killer argument. I don?t think that you necessarily have to see it that way, in fact I am convinced that a healthy degree of illegal behaviour is one of the key indicators of a healthy and robust society that can deal with its own inherent contradictions.

WMD · August 22, 2005, 3:33pm

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

The person (bigflamer) I originally answered to, did. You jumped in on the illegals-get-out band wagon.

This nation’s legal system has always been about interpretation of the law and the application of mercy when appropriate. So you keep screaming “It’s the law, it’s the law!” We know it’s the law. We also know that a moral nation understands that sometimes justice is better served by mercy and compassion when mitigating circumstances present themselves. I think abject poverty is an excellent mitigating circumstance.

WMD

WMD · August 22, 2005, 3:34pm

[quote]orion wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
WMD wrote:

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration either. I’m pretty sure most of the people coming across illegally are not criminals (although some indeed are). WMD

Illigally: ad., contrary to or in violation of the law. In an illegal manner. Criminally.

My point is, if they are illegal immigrants, they are, by definition, a criminal.

yes, but so what? You seem to think calling something “illegal” is a killer argument. I don?t think that you necessarily have to see it that way, in fact I am convinced that a healthy degree of illegal behaviour is one of the key indicators of a healthy and robust society that can deal with its own inherent contradictions.

[/quote]

Good one, orion.

bigflamer · August 22, 2005, 11:29pm

[quote]WMD wrote:
So I’m stupid and full of hate because YOU said you want a big wall with people willing to shoot to kill on it and I disagree with that bit of xenophobia?[/quote]

No your stupid and full of hate because I never once said that I hated immigrants, mexicans, or anyone else other than those individuals ILLIGALLY crossing into our country. You’ve shown your hatred by attacking me for wanting to aggresively defend our borders and completely reading what you wanted into my statement. In the age of terrorism do you really think it’s wise to not be documenting everyone coming into the country?

And how many people do you think would actually attempt to ILLIGALY cross if there was a big wall with armed border gaurds on top? My guess is zero. Maybe forcing these people to immigrate LEGALY would save a whole bunch of lives, I’m told quite a few die trying to cross each year.

[quote]
Please reread your original post.[/quote]

I did, it seems just fine.

[quote]
You are the one wanting to shoot people.[/quote]

Not just anyone. Criminals invading our country. Border control is absolutely paramount in this post 9/11 age. No I would not shed a single tear if some ILLIGAL alien had to die in the aggresive defense of our border. I guess that makes me a cold hearted conservative.

But I gaurantee that if some terrorist smugled a dirty bomb across our southern border and set it off, youd be one of the first to criticize the Bush administration for a weak border.

[quote]
Who am I hating exactly?[/quote]

Individuals like me for wanting to staff a huge wall at the border with men willing to shoot to kill in the defense of our country.

[quote]
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.[/quote]

I thought that might have gone unnoticed. Thank you.

[quote]
And I wish one of you guys would come up with a new insult besides douchebag. But way to keep the tone of the debate high, man. It truly proves your superiority. [/quote]

What’s wrong with douchebag?

[quote]
Oh, and please explain to me what I didn’t think through? It should be quite edifying to hear from an expert on immigration like yourself.[/quote]

“Illegal immigration is the act of moving to or settling in another country or region, temporarily or permanently, in violation of the law or without documents permitting an immigrant to settle in that country. People who are illegal immigrants (also known as undocumented aliens) are individuals who move to a new country either in an illegal fashion, or in a legal manner but then outstay their authorized time in the country.”

illegal-
against the law: contravening a specific law, especially a criminal law.

illegal immigrant: somebody who has entered a country illegally

I didn’t realize that you needed it broken down for you Barney style.

[quote]
I don’t have a problem with legal immigration either. I’m pretty sure most of the people coming across illegally are not criminals [/quote]

Please reread the above definitions and continue.

[quote]
The process of legal immigration into this country is difficult, expensive and full of red tape. That is why your average impoverished Mexican can’t afford to go through legal channels.
What lengths would you go to to feed your family or yourself?[/quote]

I don’t give a rusty fuck how hard it is to come here legaly. The defense of the US comes first. So by your reasoning I don’t have to play by the rules if they’ve proven to be hard? Maybe Mexico should get it’s collective shit together and work to improve their issues at home. Maybe the great benevolent United Nations should help them out.

What we as a nation need is a strong homeland defense, And I’m sorry if the aggresive defense of our borders offends your delicate sensibillities. I don’t giva fuck about that either.

Your right about one thing though, I’m chuck full of hate.

-I hate having a weak border open to terrorists.

-I hate illegal immigration.

-I hate the fact that Bush won’t get tough on this issue.

-I hate having to explain the painfully obvious to people like yourself.

bigflamer · August 22, 2005, 11:35pm

[quote]orion wrote:
yes, but so what? You seem to think calling something “illegal” is a killer argument. I don?t think that you necessarily have to see it that way, in fact I am convinced that a healthy degree of illegal behaviour is one of the key indicators of a healthy and robust society that can deal with its own inherent contradictions.
[/quote]

Sweet. Tommorow I’m gonna kick the living shit out of the first blind woman who walks by, rob a convenience store, and set a house on fire. When I’m arrested I’ll just tell them that I’m doing my part to keep society “healthy and robust”.

Zap_Branigan · August 22, 2005, 11:57pm

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

Zap Branigan wrote:
Overall it is hard to know if it was a mistake or not. It certainly is appealing to think that the insurgency could have been limited by maintaining part of the Iraqi army, but it is impossible to really know

Why mealy mouth it? It was a very bad move. The army needed to be kept very carefully together. Keep your bad apples in one basket, and keep a good eye on the basket is very elementary tactics. The situation was not the same as in Germany. Look at it from the point of view of the guys who got demobilized; there was not a wealth of economic opportunity in a crushed economy. The disaffection was huge.

Disbanding the army was like throwing gasoline on a fire. If you don’t do that, of course you still have a problem of safely disposing of an explosive. But this is typically less wearing than living through an explosion.

As for working with an intact army, that the army was largely Ba’athist wasn’t as much of the problem as that it was mainly Sunni. As Iraq tries to decide if it is one state or three especially, it would take a lot of working with. In Germany nearly everybody was a Nazi, but at the end of the war that wasn’t such a big problem as it might have sounded like. Of course, we weren’t trying to occupy Germany on a shoestring. Anyhow, you can relatively easily sanitize an officer corps, but it is harder to add Shia and Kurds to the mix. We would still be stuck with considerable force building. But we would have had a better chance to do that force building.

As for whatever good will was gotten from whatever quarter by disbanding the army, I don’t see much of it left.[/quote]

Things are not nearly as simplistic as you make them out to be. Keeping the army together would have proven to be extremely difficult.

Trying to keep an eye on the “bad apples” in the army maight have proven to be fatal. The army leadership was loyal to Saddam. The only ones that were not loyal were the very lowest levels.

Trying to keep the lowest levels togther without the leadership is a waste of time.

It was quite a mess, disbanding it was likely the best scenario.

Elkhntr1 · August 23, 2005, 12:05am

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
yes, but so what? You seem to think calling something “illegal” is a killer argument. I don?t think that you necessarily have to see it that way, in fact I am convinced that a healthy degree of illegal behaviour is one of the key indicators of a healthy and robust society that can deal with its own inherent contradictions.

Sweet. Tommorow I’m gonna kick the living shit out of the first blind woman who walks by, rob a convenience store, and set a house on fire. When I’m arrested I’ll just tell them that I’m doing my part to keep society “healthy and robust”.

[/quote]

You are a bigoted retard. You use your suite case dirty bomb anology to scare people into thinking your brand of xenophobia disguised as concern about terrorism.

Who’s to say a terrorist won’t just slip across the state border from Canada into Main with his dirty bomb suitcase. That’s where I’d go, hardly have to worry about running into any curious person out in those boonies.

You know some indigenous Americans who are willing to go do fifteen hour shifts in a crop field in 114 degree heat six days a week for minimum wage and no health benefits.

Maybe you can.

Astaroth · August 23, 2005, 12:57am

My first post and it had to be about the war on terror instead of nutrition or my workouts. Oh well. IMHO, the thing what will ultimately win the war on terror is the idea of spreading freedom which has been Bush’s vision and he is executing it with Afghanistan being the 1st step & Iraq being an even more important 2nd step. I personally could care less whether the “weapons of mass destruction” debate holds any water because the idea of spreading freedom is the right one.

Anybody who questions or disagrees with the war needs to watch the video “Voices of Iraq”.

Those who are for the war need to watch it also. As far as I know, Netflix has the exclusive on the rental of it. It is a 90 minute documentary filmed by everyday Iraqis after the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam’s regime. Los Angeles based Booya Studios passed out 150 video cameras throughout Iraq covering most of the major cities. Iraqis were instructed to film their everyday routines and life experiences. They ended up with hundreds of hours of video which has been narrowed down to 90 minutes of programming so much has been left out but they claim they kept it balanced.

The consensus about the “current” conditions are somewhat mixed but one thing that is consistent across the board is the expression of “thanks” to the U.S. and Bush for freeing them from the tyranny and oppression they have suffered for years. God Bless the U.S., Bush Good, and many other expressions of their gratitude for the U.S. freeing them will be seen throughout this film. These are the real people telling the real story, not the BS and bad news stories you hear on the news everyday.

They even comment on how our news media reports nothing but the bad and they want Americans to see how it really is and how much hope they have for their lives now. They want everyday Americans to know the gratitude they have for our sacrifice. The media reports none of this. After watching this, if you don’t feel that going to war was “the right thing to do” then nothing could ever change your mind about it.

How many “free” nations have ever threatened the U.S.? The only threats we have ever experienced from any countries are ones run by dictators, tyrants, and despots. Free countries would not provide asylum or safe harbor for terrorists or types that want to cause harm to not just the U.S. but other free nations. Do we invade all of the countries that are not free or that are still run by dictators? That’s a good question. That is a matter of strategy. If Iraq becomes free (they will be a close ally to the U.S.) then that changes the whole dynamic in the Middle East.

Why do you think Iran and Syria are flooding Iraq with insurgents? They feel the threat of freedom. A free Iraq with a strong military, the latest weapons, and a desire of the people to rid the region of terrorism has Iran, Syria, and others shaking in their boots. The U.S. wouldn’t have to do anything further to take care of that part of the world. Iraq would be the “beacon of freedom” as Bush claims and he is right. They could hold their own and anybody who threatens their freedom would be dealt with decisively.

There is not a human being in this world that does not want to be free. It is beyond comprehension that in this day and age everybody in the world is not experiencing freedom. Sadly enough, many do not have this luxury and many of the free nations turn a blind eye. It is the United States of America’s responsibility and I believe our moral obligation as the lone superpower in this world to provide that opportunity. Let’s face it, we are the only country capable of achieving such a monumental task and more importantly the only country with the intestinal fortitude to get the job done.

We have risen to the challenge many times throughout our history and prevailed. There would be many more countries to add to the terrorist threat list had it not been for the U.S. coming to their aid. It will be the only way we truly insure our safety as a nation and rid the world of the terrorist threat. This war is never going to be over until the likes of the Iran’s, Syria’s, Cuba’s, and all other similarily governed countries are toppled and their governments are run by their people. I just hope I or at least my children live to see that day.

That’s my 2 cents

Elkhntr1 · August 23, 2005, 1:31am

[quote]Astaroth wrote:
My first post and it had to be about the war on terror instead of nutrition or my workouts. Oh well. IMHO, the thing what will ultimately win the war on terror is the idea of spreading freedom which has been Bush’s vision and he is executing it with Afghanistan being the 1st step & Iraq being an even more important 2nd step. I personally could care less whether the “weapons of mass destruction” debate holds any water because the idea of spreading freedom is the right one.