Border Patrol Agent Shot

El Paso Times ^ | Oct 13, 2002 | Jum Conley

[Luis Gonzalez]

Look, you know how much I respect your opinion and the job that you do, but I just don't understand this "fix it now or be damned" attitude.

This is a problem that has been around for decades, if not centuries, and the "fix" isn't either an obvious one, nor an easy one to implament.

But to say that "nothing" is being done is simply a biased opinion. To say that Bush is engaging in actions that have as a driving force allowing "the bad guys" to enter the country easier is preposterous.

[Tancredo Fan]

Not even a slick dodge.

[FITZ]

The US is in no way obligated to do social engineering in Mexico, or any other country for that matter, before doing business with them, and unlike China or Cuba, Mexico has never stated that the destruction of the US is one of theor goals.

I agree. I think it is important that we keep in mind what kind of neighbor we have next door. It's better for us if they're in good shape and probably we should demand they get themselves in better shape and we can help them, we shouldn't help China so much ---that's using communist labor, we should promote Capitalism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A dodge?

I just left you speechless.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Uh, yes. You just don't watch FNC obviously. Tancredo broke the story on the O'Reilly Factor about 1 month ago about the Mexican military shooting out the back window of a Border Patrol agent's vehicle in Southern Arizona. Bzzzzzt. Try again.

"If Mexican authorities are chasing a smuggler in the dark, over unmarked terrain, they may inadvertently cross over into US territory."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh please. The Mexican "authorities" are for rent. The smugglers have used them to smuggle everything over the border including people. Whoraldo discussed this problem with his buddies during a feature where they were showing how Iraqi and Iranian secret service agents were being smuggled into Southern California. Please quit trying to protect Mexico. They want an open border. The majority of Americans, especially those who own ranches in that area, want the military to close it.

"Each and every one of these incursions, that happen both ways BTW, are discussed at lenght between the two governments, and dealt with at a local level."

TRANSLATION: W wants it swept under the rug.

"I suggest better communications between US and Mexican Border patrols are needed, rather than gunships to start an idiotic and not needed border war."

The bottom line is that our nation has defined borders. Mexico has defined borders. We should secure our in this alleged time of war, seal them off and limit the crossings to permitted traffic only and those legitimate crossings for individuals and famlies. I'd hardly call a smuggler with 20 kilos of cocaine legitimate. And who give's a rat's behind if they get blown to smithereens. They'll learn to surrender much quicker in the future rather than fire on our agents. I'm tired of my tax dollars subsidizing that garbage nation to our south. Mexico withdrew from the Rio treaty, endorses the mass exportation of illegal immigrants into our nation to salvage their economy, and has done nothing to shut down the flow of terrorists from their country into ours that is notable. So why the hell should we consider them an ally? Oh, I forgot. They mean votes to the pubbies and demorats. Yeah, it's more important to get re-elected than to uphold the oath to the US Constitution that every elected official makes, but never defends.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"I suggest better communications between US and Mexican Border patrols are needed, rather than gunships to start an idiotic and not needed border war."

Much like the b.s. comment that "an illegal immigrant is not an illegal immigrant but an economically deprived individual looking for freedom" that we've heard over and over on television. Bunk. A "War on Drugs" was declared decades ago. The "War on Terrorism" was declared by Bush II. The truth is that if we really were at war our borders would be sealed tight. I'm not the one using "semantics", it's the politicians. And they are the ones who are helping the terrorists and drug dealers to kill Americans on a daily basis.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"When has the US, in wartime or in peace, ever used the US Army to enforce civil law?"

1. The Civil War
2. World War I
3. The Veteran Riots in D.C. during the Great Depression.
4. World War II
5. Little Rock, AR - Civil rights enforcement
6. Vietnam War

Give me some more time and I'll get more.

"When has this notion of freedom that drives our form of self-government, included militarizing the borders, during wartime or in peace?"

1. Spanish - American War
2. Pancho Villa incursions
3. World War I
4. World War II

Given some more time, I'm sure I can find more. We deployed heavily on the southern border during the world wars because we could not trust the Mexican government to keep out German infiltrators. Gee, what a shock.

[Tancredo Fan]

Mexico should be dealt with in a manner that would make your nickname proud :-D

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Yeah, and the latest news will really piss you off to no end. Our "ally" to the south says they will not back the U.S. in it's war efforts against Iraq. I say fine. We will not buy your oil once we have eliminated Sadamn. Venezuela and Mexico can both rot in their facist hells as far as I'm concerned.

[Marine Inspector]

but I just don't understand this "fix it now or be damned" attitude.

That is our weakness. Al Quada WILL exploit it. If it is not FIX NOW more Americans will die. It's that simple.

This is a problem that has been around for decades, if not centuries, and the "fix" isn't either an obvious one, nor an easy one to implement.

I don't care how long the problem has been around. The FIX is very obvious to me and my fellow inspectors, and probable to Washington, the problem is that those idiots in Washington don't have the back bone to fix it, because it will piss someone off. And we can't have that.

So, instead of pissing off other countries, Washington will put American lives in jeopardy.

But to say that "nothing" is being done is simply a biased opinion. To say that Bush is engaging in actions that have as a driving force allowing "the bad guys" to enter the country easier is preposterous.

You can either fix the problem, or ignore the problem. Bush and Company are ignoring the problem. Has spending billions of dollars on the TSA, made flying safer? NO. Will spending billions of dollars on Homeland Security make you safer? NO. All these things are done to make the populace happy, not to actually secure anything. Either that, or everyone of those idiots in Washington have a combined IQ of 0.

Yes, my opinion is biased. It is biased, because I want America safe and could care less whether I hurt some foreigners feelings. America First. It's that simple.

[Tancredo Fan]

Yeah, and the latest news will really piss you off to no end. Our "ally" to the south says they will not back the U.S. in it's war efforts against Iraq.

Yes, I heard about that this morning. What that pack of wretched hubcap thieves and parasites think is really of no consequence. Personally I don't think that Mexico has a right to exist under the present circumstances. It should be dealt soon in a significant manner. Very soon.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let's first take into consideration that the Posse Comitatus Act was specifically enacted to stop Federal troops from enforcing civilian laws in the post-Civil War south before taking apart the remainder of your ridiculous list.

Next, I guess I have to explain the difference between the National Guard (a State Militia) and the U.S. Army (Federal) to you, you seem not to be real clear on the difference between the two, since you've listed National Guard interventions as part of your examples of the US Army enforcing civil law.

In order to understand the role of the U.S. Military in our country, you must first understand the natural aversion of the Americans at the time of the Revolution, to the age-old practice by European monarchs of using the military to keep the masses in place. The Founders themselves envisioned a militia-based military that would have no role in the enforcement of Civil Laws.

The Spanish-American War did not see any militarization of the borders, and the Pancho Villa raids sparked Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico, not a militarization of the borders.

To the best of my knowledge, the US Army was too busy during either World War to take an active role in protecting the domestic borders, and that task was once again left to the Reserves, and the National Guard.

Unless of course, you can substantiate your claims that it did. Or substantiate anything at all that you posted for that matter.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Al Queda could have boarded flights in Canada, the UK, or any other nation, destination California with a stopover in Boston of New York. The murderers would have just sat in the airplane, or changed planes, and committed the exact same attrocity. Fear-mongering is a Liberal trait, I don't buy into it.

It would be nice if you enlightened all of us with the nature of "the FIX" BTW.

"Bush and Company are ignoring the problem."

So say you. It appears that the problem here is one of a difference of opinion over policies. You initialy stated that Bush is saying and doing nothing, now you are arguing that what he is doing isn't to your liking.

Stick to one argument will you please.

"Will spending billions of dollars on Homeland Security make you safer? NO."

I see that you are engaging in fortune telling now, as I cannot possibly see an other way for you to be predicting the efficiency of a system which has yet to be implemented.

"America first."

At least now I know where you are coming from.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, you are once again advocating violence and a nuclear attack on Mexico?

[FlyVet]

A small number of AC-130's on alert status can fix this. What are the Mexicans going to do about it? I'm also sick of it. It's time to be a "bully".

[PRND21]

What that pack of wretched hubcap thieves and parasites think is really of no consequence.

No consequence?
Go read your last 10,000 posts.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Hmmmm, Posse Comitatus? Let's see, was that law ever really taken seriously, uh no, not by many presidents. You mistake one thing right off the bat. Although the National Guard is thought to be 100% controlled by the governors of the various states, you are incorrect. In the Little Rock case it was a Federalization of the Guard under the orders of the President which put them under U.S. Army control. The Commander in Chief reserves that right at any time overriding any orders of the state governments. But on to dismantling your abusurdities in defense of the bandit nation of Mexico.

"The Spanish-American War did not see any militarization of the borders, and the Pancho Villa raids sparked Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico, not a militarization of the borders."

The U.S. Army was deployed in the Keys and throughout south Florida during the Spanish American war as there was a fear of invasion by the Spaniards. It was bogus, but I guess you only want deployments on the Mexican border. The U.S. military was deployed throughout Texas, New Mexico and Arizona along the border to prevent Villa from crossing at a different location. It was a small deployment (less than 6,000 troops total) but it was a border deployment.

"To the best of my knowledge, the US Army was too busy during either World War to take an active role in protecting the domestic borders, and that task was once again left to the Reserves, and the National Guard."

Well, to the best of your limited knowledge obviously. An Army division was deployed on the Mexican border as a message to the corrupt government in nacholand because it was feared that they would accept the offer of becoming allies with the Germans in WWI. Gee, what a shocker. We also deployed "reserves" (BZZZZZZZZZZT again, Reserves are members of the U.S. Armed Forces, not just the National Guard) along the border to assist the authorities in preventing infiltrations from our alleged ally to the south during WWII. The Mexican government protested but Roosevelt would not hear it as the lazy "ally" to the south sat on their hands instead of assisting in the largest war in human history.

Since the Mexican-American War in the 1800's, it has been demonstrated that Mexico is no ally of the U.S. W is playing the American people for fools in the interest of big oil on this one. Most of us know the difference between an ally and a blood sucker. Mexico's government thinks it's ok to send their scum across the border to bleed our tax dollars dry with millions of illegal immigrants. Mexico has done ZERO, nothing, nada to stop the flow of Islamic terrorists across the border (well documented by FNC, if you're too lazy to look it up that's your problem), and Mexico is well known to enjoy the financial benefits of the drug trade. I say close the borders completely. End this nonsense that Mexico is an "ally" as with the declaration of their foreign minister last night, it's obvious they are not. And deport the illegals en masse. I'm tired of paying for another nation's failures. And in the last 50 years that's all our foreign policy has done.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I've noticed that you refused in all your posts to address the documented ferrying service run by Mexicans to move Iranian and Iraqi Secret Service agents into the U.S. as documented by FNC. Typical of the pro-Mexico crowd. Tell the Americans you love them in one breath and stab them in the back in another. That's why the expression in Texas and Florida continues to be "never trust a Mexican". I stand by that expression after my business dealings in that rathole of a nation.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" A small number of AC-130's on alert status can fix this. What are the Mexicans going to do about it? I'm also sick of it. It's time to be a "bully"."

We can do this cheaper. The AC-130's are needed overseas. We simply should mine the border region with numerous warning signs in the uninhabited areas. Once a few smugglers and illegals were blown to smithereens, that would end the border crossings quickly.