[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
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. [/quote]
Interesting response to a very plausible scenario. You know as well as I do that Bush would be crucified by everybody if that scenario played out. Why is that? Because they would be absolutely right to do so!
How do you get “bigoted retard” from my strong advocation of border control? Yes I think we should absolutely document every immigrant coming to this country. Yes I think that weak borders are an open invitation to domestic terror. And yes I think that strong borders should be staffed by men willing to shoot to kill if necessary.
However I have not stated once that I hate Mexicans or any foreigner for that matter. I doubt you’ll find any reference of my hatred toward anybody, but if you do please post it. If someone attempts to illegally cross our border with the knowledge that he could be shot for doing so, then he deserves to get shot. Illegal immigrants havr provrn to be extremely resourcefull in their attempts to illegaly cross into our country. Maybe they could focus their ingenuity towards legal immigration instead of illegal immigration.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
I agree 100%. I want both our southern AND northern border to be strongly regulated. I absolutely agree with you that anyone coming to this country needs to be documented. Canadian or Mexican, it doesn’t matter! It’s not about race, ethnicity, or any of that bullshit. It’s about homeland defense.
If someone broke into my home, my first thought isn’t how tough his life is, or how hungry him or his family is. My first thought is the welfare of MY family. And I would shoot to kill without hesitation.
If we as a nation are not willing to enforce our borders, then why even have borders? Think about it.
Your off base again Elky. I never once questioned anyone elses work ethic. I have however openly admired foreign workers for just that. Nice attempt to spin this into a different direction though.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.”
Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
It’s this simple.[/quote]
Good God Man!! The Arabs just landed in Jersey!! Oh my God they set up a beachhead at Jersey City! Quick, call back all the Italians and Jews from Florida! This war is going to be expensive! Canada, send money to New Jersey immediately, PM me for the address. Cash only.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
And that justifies the companies breaking the law? [/quote]
No, but it is the source of the problem. If no one hired or helped those illegals in any way, they wouldn’t come.
Yes, but you’ll have a lot of trouble adressing that part of the problem as long as there is demand for them.
They have shitty life at home. They have a chance at a better life here. Heck, for some prison here might be better than free at home… You can’t really wall-in the continental U.S.
We? What we? I’m Canadian. You included us in your list of illegals previously, remember? I’m sure that right this minutes, droves of poor, oppressed Canadians are crawling on their hands and knees to cross the 1-mile no-man’s-land that separates us. Running away from our generous welfare programs and free health care, poor bastards.
[quote]The Dmachine wrote:
Im Canadian but I would have to say that I support the USA 100 percent in taking Saddam Hussein out of power and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Whether Iraq has WMD or not is not important, whats important was that Saddam wouldn’t let in weapons inspectors, kept playing games, and now he’s sitting in a jail cell in Quantanamo playing with cockroaches. Good. Both his sons are dead, his grandsons dead, good. Id support America going into Iran as well, it dosnt matter how you look at it the truth is that the world is better with out these dictator governments.
The only downside I see is that its pretty expensive fighting wars, but cost set aside I hope the USA continues kicking ass.[/quote]
Ah, yes. Another chickenhawk backing the war from the safety of his Lazy-Boy. It’s great fun invading foreign countries when you’re not the one doing the dying, isn’t it?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Too bad there wasn’t more fear of domestic terror prior to 9/11 huh Vroomie.
So soon we forget.[/quote]
According to Richard Clarke, there was plenty of fear of domestic terror, prior to Bush’s (stealing of the) election in 2000.
After the 1993 attempts on the WTC, Clinton had regular “terror” meetings and managed to avert many attacks, the best known being the averted bombing of Los Angeles airport at New Year’s Eve 2000 by the “Millenium Bomber”.
When Bush came into power, he stopped having those meetings because “he was tired of swatting at flies” and was looking for a reason to go into Iraq.
So it’s not so much about forgetting, as much as remembering only what’s convenient…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Rather than having another quagmire, could we please have leaders that actually want to fight to win? I don’t care about the perception of the U.S. around the world, or whether we will offend Muslim sensibilities! We nuked Japan and they’re a peaceful democracy and support us. We turned Germany into a dump heap and, while they don’t love us, are not marching into Paris. GD IT George, WIN the f’in thing already!!![/quote]
Oh george cant hear you you’re a citizen of the united states and mean nothing to him…wait… did you register for the draft?.. I did… I guess I would count as currency.
Its a sad sad world…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Trying to keep the lowest levels togther without the leadership is a waste of time.[/quote]
Yes? Well the time we need is directly a function of how long it takes to rebuild a functioning military. So keeping the lower levels together would definitely not have been a waste of time.
As for loyalty to Saddam, it is not clear how much that means since his was a rule of fear, even among Sunni (even among his own hierarchy!) Loyalty to Sunni interests in controlling Iraq is more likely the issue.
Yes, keeping the army together poses its own problems. But the problems we wound up with by chucking the army wholesale are by and large much worse.
Here is an argument for getting out of Iran pronto. It is made by a former neo-con, a West Point graduate who is Professor of International Relations at Boston University.
We’ve Done All We Can Do in Iraq
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, August 21, 2005; Page B01
The banner decorating the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, when President Bush announced an end to “major combat operations” in Iraq, turns out to have been accurate after all. If only the president himself had taken to heart the banner’s proclamation of “Mission Accomplished.” For by that date, having deposed Saddam Hussein, the United States had achieved in Iraq just about all that it has the capacity to achieve. The time has come for Bush to dig the banner out of the closet, drape it across the front of the White House and make it the basis for policy instead of continuing under the inglorious banner of “Mission Impossible.”
Ironically, ever since the presidential victory lap of two years ago, the Bush administration has been in the forefront of those insisting that the U.S. mission in Iraq is not accomplished – that there is ever so much more that the United States can and must do on behalf of the Iraqi people. Hence the grandiose U.S. promises of reconstruction, economic and political reform, and nation-building.
The chief effect of efforts to fulfill these promises has been to convert a short, economical and purportedly glorious war into a long, costly and debilitating one.
Moreover, senior U.S. military leaders have increasingly concluded that the long war is an unwinnable one. “[T]his insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,” Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, acknowledged earlier this summer. “It’s going to be settled in the political process.” However self-serving it may be – the military’s eagerness to offload responsibility for the course of events in Iraq has become palpable of late – Alston’s analysis is correct.
Alas, the Bush administration adamantly insists that any such political process can only proceed with constant American coaching and oversight. Underlying this insistence is the assumption, seldom voiced openly, that the Iraqi people are incapable of managing their own affairs. They need us.
Do they? In fact, apart from consuming $300 billion and many thousands of lives (including more than 1,850 U.S. soldiers), the attempt to tutor Iraqis on their journey to American-style freedom has yielded results quite opposite from those intended: Rather than producing security, our continued massive military presence has helped fuel continuing violence. Rather than producing liberal democracy, our meddling in Iraqi politics has exacerbated political dysfunction. And by signaling the importance that it attributes to satisfying the core interests of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike, Washington has encouraged all three factions to increase their demands. Convinced that the Americans will never permit a cataclysmic collision, each faction is committed to playing a high-stakes game of chicken. If Iraq in August 2005 qualifies as the political equivalent of a clapped-out, self-abusing dependent, then the Bush administration ought to be recognized as being an enabler.
Wisdom requires that the Bush administration call an end to its misbegotten crusade. While avoiding the appearance of an ignominious dash for the exits, but with all due speed, the United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We’ve done all that we can do.
Getting out now makes sense not just to avoid further running up our bill, but because doing so holds out the prospect of a more favorable result. Granted, constructing a positive case for withdrawal requires a redefinition of purpose. From the outset, the Bush administration has focused on the wrong political objective. Rather than attempting to democratize Iraq as a first step toward “transforming” the Middle East, our proper aim should be to stabilize the country so that we can concentrate our energies on containing and eventually reducing the threat posed by violent Islamic radicals.
Stability – defined as preserving a unified Iraq and reducing the insurgency – cannot be imposed. It can only be negotiated by the various factions constituting the Iraqi polity. The issues dividing those factions are by no means trivial. But their common interest in maintaining the integrity of the state is also great. Announcing the U.S. departure will concentrate the minds of Iraqi leaders of all stripes. It will clear away any misconceptions regarding the consequences of secession.
In addition to assuming that Iraqis require American supervision, the Bush administration’s insistence on staying the course also implicitly assumes that a U.S. withdrawal would leave a dangerous political vacuum in the region. But this assumption too is suspect. More likely, the American departure would foster a political dynamic in which Iraq’s neighbors would exert themselves to keep Iraq from spinning out of control – not out of any concern for the well-being of the Iraqi peoplebut out of sheer self-interest.
Among the autocrats holding sway in the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein was the last remaining quasi-revolutionary. The regimes that control Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and even Iran are not maneuvering to overturn the political order in the region. This is not to say that they are benign. But they do share one overriding interest, namely preserving their own hold on power – an objective not at all served by allowing Iraq to wallow in perpetual turmoil. Iraq’s neighbors have a compelling interest in facilitating a political process that just might bring a semblance of order to that country. For religious, cultural and historical reasons, they are also far better positioned than the United States to offer assistance that might actually prove helpful.
Will a U.S. withdrawal guarantee a happy outcome for the people of Iraq? Of course not. In sowing the seeds of chaos through his ill-advised invasion, Bush made any such guarantee impossible. If one or more of the Iraqi factions chooses civil war, they will have it. Should the Kurds opt for independence, then modern Iraq will cease to exist. No outside power can prevent such an outcome from occurring anymore than an outside power could have denied Americans their own civil war in 1861.
Dismemberment is by no means to be desired and would surely visit even more suffering on the much-abused people of Iraq. But in the long run, the world would likely find ways to adjust to this seemingly unthinkable prospect just as it learned to accommodate the collapse of the Soviet Union, the division of Czechoslovakia and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
What will pulling out of Iraq mean for the United States? It will certainly not mean losing access to Iraqi oil, which will inevitably find its way to the market. To be sure, bringing the troops home will preclude the Pentagon from establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq – but the Bush administration has said all along that we don’t covet such bases anyway. In addition, withdrawal will put an end to extravagant expectations of using Iraq as a springboard for democratizing the Islamic world – but that notion never qualified as more than a pipe dream anyway.
For Bush personally, the consequences of leaving Iraq might be the most painful. The prospect of looking antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan in the eye to explain exactly what her son died for will become even more daunting. But as it is, the president can’t dodge that question indefinitely. Postponing the issue simply swells the ranks of those with similar questions to ask.
Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University, is the author of “The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War” (Oxford).
[quote]kakusha wrote:
… did you register for the draft?.. I did… I guess I would count as currency.
Its a sad sad world…[/quote]
Please try to cheer up, kakusha. You don’t have it so bad.
Sometimes I wonder if any of my countrymen truly appreciate what we have here. And more importantly, what we are trying to do for everybody else. Is it so hard to see past yourself and look at the big picture?
Do we want to eliminate tyranny or not? Do you want everyone to have the same opportunities and liberties as you have?
Or are you too smug and stuck-up?
(cue elkhntr telling me to sign up for the military…three… two…)
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
kakusha wrote:
… did you register for the draft?.. I did… I guess I would count as currency.
Its a sad sad world…
Please try to cheer up, kakusha. You don’t have it so bad.
Sometimes I wonder if any of my countrymen truly appreciate what we have here. And more importantly, what we are trying to do for everybody else. Is it so hard to see past yourself and look at the big picture?
Do we want to eliminate tyranny or not? Do you want everyone to have the same opportunities and liberties as you have?
Or are you too smug and stuck-up?
(cue elkhntr telling me to sign up for the military…three… two…)
[/quote]
Oh, no, not me Loth, I realize your flat feet or was it asthma keeps you from partaking in the glorious battle for freedom (cue Loth screaming FREEDOM William Wallace style from Braveheart) and against Dr. Evil that is taking place.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The Dmachine wrote:
Im Canadian but I would have to say that I support the USA 100 percent in taking Saddam Hussein out of power and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Whether Iraq has WMD or not is not important, whats important was that Saddam wouldn’t let in weapons inspectors, kept playing games, and now he’s sitting in a jail cell in Quantanamo playing with cockroaches. Good. Both his sons are dead, his grandsons dead, good. Id support America going into Iran as well, it dosnt matter how you look at it the truth is that the world is better with out these dictator governments.
The only downside I see is that its pretty expensive fighting wars, but cost set aside I hope the USA continues kicking ass.
Ah, yes. Another chickenhawk backing the war from the safety of his Lazy-Boy. It’s great fun invading foreign countries when you’re not the one doing the dying, isn’t it?[/quote]
Hey, Loth, looks like you have a partner up north in your chickenhawkery.
lothario my man, in you infinite optimish please try and see that on any given day some dick can blow you up, or some dick can send you off to war to get blown up.
Were not fighting for freedom here. I dont remember saddam sending Iraqis to attack us, no those were idiot arab farmboy types with too much religion on the brain and no care “for the bigger picture” (other people’s lives). This whole screwball insanely highschool state our country and the world is in today is the result of one thing, dumbass, pigheaded, biased foreign policy. Oh and all the while people sat by hoping for the best. Well i’m done with that and i’m gonna think worst case senario. “It’s all over man”
Stuck up? Hardly, i just walk with my eyes open.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, no, not me Loth, I realize your flat feet or was it asthma keeps you from partaking in the glorious battle for freedom (cue Loth screaming FREEDOM William Wallace style from Braveheart) and against Dr. Evil that is taking place. :)[/quote]
LOL You kill me, dude. Flat feet, BTW. Just imagine, if I could have gone to West Point, you would have had to salute ME, of all people. Maybe my genetics did you a favor, elk.
And I like the Braveheart reference… seeing as how I’m Scottish in heritage. (Now where did I put that blue face paint?)
PS Good timing, elk. You’re like Old Faithful over in Yellowstone Park.
[quote]kakusha wrote:
Well i’m done with that and i’m gonna think worst case senario. “It’s all over man”
Stuck up? Hardly, i just walk with my eyes open.[/quote]
Well, if you’re not stuck up, I suppose we could file you under “defeated”.
Come on, man! You say you have your eyes open, but it seems to me that you only want to look at dog doo. Heads up, pal… every day is a bright new day. For every reason someone gives me to look down in this life, I will give them two to look up.
Life is not a bitch. That’s the attitude of a pussy. And you know what my beloved late grandfather used to tell me:
“Why be a pussy if you don’t have to be?”
God, I miss that man. Made the meanest martini you could ever hope to sip.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, no, not me Loth, I realize your flat feet or was it asthma keeps you from partaking in the glorious battle for freedom (cue Loth screaming FREEDOM William Wallace style from Braveheart) and against Dr. Evil that is taking place.
LOL You kill me, dude. Flat feet, BTW. Just imagine, if I could have gone to West Point, you would have had to salute ME, of all people. Maybe my genetics did you a favor, elk.
And I like the Braveheart reference… seeing as how I’m Scottish in heritage. (Now where did I put that blue face paint?)
PS Good timing, elk. You’re like Old Faithful over in Yellowstone Park. :)[/quote]
