Replies

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.

"Let's see, was that law ever really taken seriously, uh no, not by many presidents."

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."

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?