Posted on 10/13/2002 3:12:34 AM PDT by FryingPan101
First question: how are you going to plant said mines QUICKLY?
Second question: after the inevitable "blue-on-blue" mining incident, how are you going to sustain the program? The one thing you can be sure of is that, for various reasons, some of the warning signs are going to disappear.
Third question: after the local criminal element digs up a few mines and starts using them for criminal activities, how are you going to sustain the program?
Fourth question: now that you've made seaborne smuggling of illegal aliens economically profitable...how are you going to stop the illegal aliens?
Do you really think that the press is going to voluntarily not cover the story of Joe American, who got his legs blown off by a mine from the border strip? Do you really think that Americans are going to accept that sort of thing happening?
There is something else we would need: an inexhaustible supply of 18-year-olds to draft. Just putting ten people per mile on the border on a 24/7 basis would require over 100,000 troops--not counting cooks, bakers, clerks, logisticians, armorers, and command staff--and 10 soldiers per mile isn't nearly enough. 100 per mile is a bit closer to reality. That's "only" a million troops. And, given standard US Army manning for combat troops to support personnel ("tooth to tail"), that works out to about 10 million troops in the total force package. If "Army Transformation" works as advertised--i.e., if a bunch of technologies that haven't been invented yet arrive on schedule--that figure can drop down to about 6 million--but that's in the year 2022, and you're trying to solve a problem NOW. Of course, you can always move those personnel "under the line" or "off budget" through creative (read: dishonest) accounting techniques. But you still have an irreducible minimum force package of over 1,000,000 infantrymen plus their support.
We don't have 1,000,000 infantrymen available. You're going to start yanking people out of other jobs, and that will convince a lot of folks to leave the military, whereupon you'll need to have a draft.
Once you've closed the southern border, you have to secure the coastline and the northern border--because when you nail the front door shut and ignore the windows and back door, you'd be amazed how fast the scumbags figure out that that's the way to go. So your force package probably exceeds the total manpower pool available in this country unless you start drafting illegal immigrants.
Let's also not forget that when you have people conducting anti-smuggling ops, a certain number of them will go bad. So far, the military has an admirable record vis-a-vis the police force. However, please do not confuse a lack of temptation with innate moral superiority.
However, the price tags are very different. The price tag for a corrupt police force is an increase in crime. The price tag for a corrupt army is the destruction of America.
A better long-term solution is to impose "regime change" on Mexico.
Oh really? Would that be why you're trying to pass off actions by the State militia as actions by the Federal troops?
Would that be why you've conveniently forgotten to defend the rest of the ridiculous examples that you posted?
Deploying troops to physically go to fight against Mexico isn't "militarizing the borders", it's fighting a war. Deploying troops to a base in the keys during war time, in a war that we were preparing to enter isn't "militarizing the borders" anymore than moving troops to sea ports in Virginia prior to transporting them to Europe to engage in a war is "militarizing the borders".
I am not incorrect in the National Guard issue, I am proven correct by your own post when you point out that in specific cases, the Guard has to be federalized by presidential order prior to coming under Federal control.
Get your facts straight.
The Villa issue was an action specifically designed to accomplish a simple task of capturing a specific individual, but if that's your argument, then rejoice as the US Army is allowed to assist in tracking down drug smugglers.
"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."
"Wilson was busy ignoring the Germans and preoccupied himself instead with internal Mexican policies.""Woodrow Wilson's first demonstration of foreign policy was his intervention in the Mexican Revolution when he refused to recognize Victoriano Huerta as the President of Mexico, even when it served American business interests to do so. Here was another example of the United States flaunting its power over weaker countries."
"It can be argued that it was beneficial to national security to keep bordering countries weak, or even that we were promoting democracy for the good of Mexico, but countries never want a weak puppet of another country as a leader. Instead of trying to force Mexico into submission, Wilson should have recognized Huerta as a leader and then kept armed watch over Mexico. By intervening with armed forces in Mexico, Wilson only made more unprovoked enemies."
"Reserves" are State militia.
"Maintaining an adequate military force in peacetime is unlikely. Budgetary considerations limit a full time Armed Forces to the extent that most all agree that reserve components have to be in the mix of defense preparation. Downsizing is already in process. The Armed Forces components, both regular and reserve, are in competition with each other for resources. The National Guard (NG), particularly Army National Guard (ARNG) and Army Reserves (USAR) are our focus of inter service rivalry.""The present day militia are the state defense forces (SDFs) of some 25 states, also called State Guard or Military Reserve. These citizens train as volunteers."
"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."
What bothers me about your position, and the position of those similar to you, is the need to resort to lies in order to inflame passions.
"Whereas the United States did ask, and then instituted, a rational consultation process with Mexico in its efforts to obtain military cooperation, the German government asked neither President Cárdenas nor President Avila Camacho if Mexico could be used as a staging ground for acts of war against the United States."
Why lie? The U.S. and Mexico had differences during WW II, and there where foreign agents secretly using Mexico as a staging area for saboteur activities, but there was no "offer" made to Mexico.
As a matter of fact, Mexico's contribution to the US war effort was in supplying raw goods for manufacturing.
"Since the Mexican-American War in the 1800's, it has been demonstrated that Mexico is no ally of the U.S."
Other than in your opinion, where would we find this "demonstrated"?
"And deport the illegals en masse."
Well hell! I say we cure cancer as well!
There, now we took care of TWO major problems today!
U.S.-Mexico relations have sometimes been good, and other times rocky. It probably stems from the time in our history when we decided that it was destined that we should own what was theirs--we haven't been the best of neighbors ourselves--but it is a far better idea to continue attempting to maintain a level of civility, than create an out and out enemy at our border.
I don't like illegal immigration, but to resort to lies and propaganda to state what should be failry simple to state bothers me even more.
"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)..."
I looked it up...nada, zero, zilch.
Why is that not surprising?
I even looked in the American Patrol site BTW.
"...and Mexico is well known to enjoy the financial benefits of the drug trade."
And we don't?
If Mexican Nationals are shooting at our patrol agents, that kind of looks like war, which we should respond appropriately. We should have trained solders at our borders with orders to shoot-to-kill!
Another thing. Pick a district where the non-incumbent doesn’t have a ghost of a chance; so that his(her) supporters won’t be concerned about “wasting their votes”.
We have such a candidate here in my district in Silicon Valley in California. The Republican candidate Joe Nixon) is running a non-compaign against Anna Eshoo who loves all immigration, legal or not.
I am not going to bother supporting Nixon, but I would gladly support a candidate form anypart of the country , including my own, if that person showed a strong inclination to get control of our borders.
This issue deserves a great deal of discussion. The only way that a change is going to take place is for a few status quo jerks to lose at the polls.JiM
So have I, and BTW, if you're there doing business with corrupt people, and here tearing them to sh&t and calling them corrupt, what does that make you?
"But they do like our money and are more than happy to illegally cross the border to steal from the taxpayers.
Steal? There's another lie, they don't HAVE to steal, we are frigging GIVING them benefits, why don't you direct your energy at the State politicos who GIVE AWAY THE HOUSE TO ILLEGALS?
"I say we start sending them home in body bags if they resist going home or arrest at the border."
Talk is cheap dude, go and try to convince the American people that's the way to go, let's see how far you get into trying to talk them into shooting mean and children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.