A war of utter folly

shermangeneral wrote:"He would have sent troops to our ports and borders to protect Americans from the terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders. They pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life."

Well Steph that makes for a good sound byte but your allegation above does not appear to be altogethor accurate.

(I refer to the part about "terrorists" crossing our "porous" borders).

"Terrorists" have no need to sneak across the Mexican border.

Just look at the 9-11 perpetrators as a case in point.

Did any of them "sneak" in? No, they did not need to.

And as to the ports, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding there too.

Let me give a case in point.

This past week I went to the port facility at Norfolk to pick up a load of rubber from Indonesia ok.
Lots of port security. they check you up and down, run your name thru the computer, etc.

Well after 3 or 4 hrs they figured out my ship had already come in and the load I was after had been picked up and taken to a warehouse several miles away.

So then I had to go thru the same anal exam to get back out and go to the other warehouse.

Where there was no security whatsoever.

(In the meantime the load had switched hands 3 times on paper but that's a topic for another thread).

So if you were a terrorist bent on sabotage or mayhem, where yould you attack that load of rubber?

At the port facility teeming with armed security or the warehouse where there is zero security?

They had several loads of rubber coming out that day so how much trouble would it be to load a small detonating and/or inflammatory device in one or more of them which they could assume are going to leave and go straight thru the harbor tunnel to come back west.

Talk about mayhem just intercept one load on one end of the tunnel and another on the other end and activate the improvised devices. No need for anything elaborate.

40,000 pounds of rubber burning with thick black smoke on each end of the tunnel.

What a mess.

I know you might think I am just a paranoid ex-cop driving a truck but still.

My point being that an impenetrable fortress type wall on the Mexican border is a simplistic solution that some seem to be buying in to.

I recommend a more broad-based, holistic approach.

Just think what a job I could do if I was the color code coordinator, LOL....

Sherm,

You singled out the Mexican border in your response to me, I did not. Nor did I leave out the importance of securing our ports. I mentioned ports in the first sentence you quoted.

As far as the terrorists that carried out the attacks here on 911, they didn't sneak across our border with Mexico, but they all did overstay their VISA's, or lie on their applications etc. The point is, if the federal government had done its job keeping track of the aliens we have here in this country, that could have been averted.

Just as now, our government was far too concerned about what was happening in other nations than what was going on right here on American soil. We had troops guarding the border between North & South Korea, we had troops in Saudi Arabia, we troops galore in Germany. We were sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel and more than double that to the enemies of Israel. If our federal government weren't so involved in interferring with the operations of other sovereign nations, it would have had much greater resources to protect us and those hijackers very may well have been caught before they could carry out their plans. They certainly would have stood a better chance.

Anyway you look at it the success of the terrorists in American on 911 is the direct result of the failure of the federal government to do its job. Obviously if they weren't spread so thin and distracted by things they ought not have been doing to begin with, they would have been much more successful at protecting us.

I'm sure there are some who have a very narrow view and believe that creating a barrier between the US and Mexico will solve all of our problems. There are also people who believe OJ Simpson is innocent and that one day that the world was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago. I don't believe any of those things.

If our federal government did its job and prevented people from coming here illegally, and kept track of those it does allow into the country, expelling those who overstay their VISAs or don't comply with its terms, we'd all have to worry a lot less about the scenario you described. I don't think you're paranoid. I think we should be concerned about such a possibility.

Steph I know you mentioned ports and that's why I responded.

My point was that it makes little sense to strengthen the stronger link in the chain.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

There are easier places to attack/sabotage shipments coming into the country than the ports.

I agree with you and Ron that the troops should be brought home.

I just do not agree that putting them all at the border will accomplish anything worthwhile.

For those concerned with illegal immigrant workers that problem is best solved by penalizing those who hire them. imo

shermangeneral wrote:I agree with you and Ron that the troops should be brought home.

And what would you do about the real concerns that have been posted? Ignore them like others or do you actually have a solution other then 'marching out'?

Well Aaron I would open at least one and possibly two or three new bases here in WV to station the new modern army which would be trained and equipped to handle 21st Century National Security problems.

Let Germany handle German problems and let Great Britain handle theirs ok.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron I would open at least one and possibly two or three new bases here in WV to station the new modern army which would be trained and equipped to handle 21st Century National Security problems.

Let Germany handle German problems and let Great Britain handle theirs ok.

That doesn't address the current situation we're in right now. What specifically would you do about Iraq?

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/06iraq_joseph.aspx

I think some amalgamation of this and Biden's proposal might be a way to stave off further escalation into all-out Civil War.

But the process would have to get its impetus from the UN and/or Arab league, not the U.S.

That is what the UN is for, not the U.S.

I would agree with this to an extent but I don't think the US can pull out of Iraq. Right now, there is a power struggle going on in Iraq between Maliki's Shia led government forces and Muqtade al Sadr's Mahdi army, which is being backed by the Iranian government. The man is dangerous and is just waiting on the US to leave. He knows he can't defeat us which is why he has called for a cease fire for 7+ months. But make no mistake about it, once we are gone, he will wage war for control of Iraq and he knows it is only a matter of time before liberals in our country force us to pull out. And at that point, all hell breaks loose, civil war is on and neither the UN nor the Arab league will prevent it. Even Joe Biden knew this, which is why he never called for a complete US pullout.

Ok I showed you mine now show us yours Aaron.

What would you do?

What is your solution?

Given the political situation both here and there?

I did, at least partially Sherm. Until there is a stable government that comes forth in Iraq we are obligated to remain there. We created the situation of unstability and it is our responsibility to fix it and "No Mas" or "march out" isn't a solution. Stephanie likes to state that we marched out of Vientam and we now have relations and trade with them but our fight was never with the Vietnamese, it was with communism and we didn't 'march out' on that fight. We saw it through just like we must do here, regardless of who our next President is.

I think both BO and HC understand that, at least to a point. Neither have stated that we should bring all the troops home now. Both have said basically the same thing the Iraq Study Group has, which is that Iraq must be stablized and our interest must be protected. To do any less is plain stupid regardless of how long it takes us to acheive stability.

Well it is amazing but again we agree on something.

I have said consistently that I will have a problem supporting anyone who is for the continuing military occupation of Iraq.

It does appear to me (and apparently to you as well) that all three of the remaining serious candidates do support the continued occupation. Although two of them wont say so directly.

So I am not sure what I will do.

So you would pull ALL troops out of Iraq and give it over to Muqtada al Sadr and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and allow radical Islamist with a history of sponsoring terrorist control of a quarter of the worlds oil, huh Sherm!!!

Aaron wrote:

SamCogar wrote:
Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc..

Even though, unlike John McCain, he's requested MILLION$$$ in ear mark pork spending just like Hillary and Byrd. Wouldn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite Sam?

Well now Aaron, its like what I tell most anyone now days.

If you qualify, ........ or can get qualified, ....... for any Government money being handed out, .......... go for it and take it. At least you will get it instead of one of the politicians or someone in or from another country.

Aaron, you are quite silly iffen you think it will be better for America if one refused such money.

Iffen ya can't get them to quit giving it away, ......... then get your share of it.

cheers

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:

SamCogar wrote:
Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc..

Even though, unlike John McCain, he's requested MILLION$$$ in ear mark pork spending just like Hillary and Byrd. Wouldn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite Sam?

Well now Aaron, its like what I tell most anyone now days.

If you qualify, ........ or can get qualified, ....... for any Government money being handed out, .......... go for it and take it. At least you will get it instead of one of the politicians or someone in or from another country.

Aaron, you are quite silly iffen you think it will be better for America if one refused such money.

Iffen ya can't get them to quit giving it away, ......... then get your share of it.

cheers

That's the mindset of the classic liberal and has us in our current situation Sam. I have children which will one day likely lead to grand children. I would prefer they experience the United States of America, not a knock off of France.

We need to reign in unconstitutional spending RIGHT now. If not us, who? If not now, when?

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:

SamCogar wrote:
Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc..

Even though, unlike John McCain, he's requested MILLION$$$ in ear mark pork spending just like Hillary and Byrd. Wouldn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite Sam?

Well now Aaron, its like what I tell most anyone now days.

If you qualify, ........ or can get qualified, ....... for any Government money being handed out, .......... go for it and take it. At least you will get it instead of one of the politicians or someone in or from another country.

Aaron, you are quite silly iffen you think it will be better for America if one refused such money.

Iffen ya can't get them to quit giving it away, ......... then get your share of it.

cheers

It makes no sense for Congressman Paul not to include earmarks for his district. When you're in a minority of less than 1%, you know you can't possibly win the battle now or in the near future. All that would result in is the 22nd district of Texas would be paying for bacon for everybody else. It wouldn't have any kind of impact on the problem. All it would do is cost Americans the best Representative in the House because the people of that district would stop reelecting him. That would be stupid and Ron Paul is a lot of things, but stupid isn't on the list.

I think that McCain avoiding earmarks shows a level of integrity. I am impressed. I also don't blame Ron Paul for wanting to get re-elected. So I guess my point is that while I don't think Ron Paul is doing wrong, I think that McCain on this matter is doing very well, indeed.

Stephanie wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:

SamCogar wrote:
Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc..

Even though, unlike John McCain, he's requested MILLION$$$ in ear mark pork spending just like Hillary and Byrd. Wouldn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite Sam?

Well now Aaron, its like what I tell most anyone now days.

If you qualify, ........ or can get qualified, ....... for any Government money being handed out, .......... go for it and take it. At least you will get it instead of one of the politicians or someone in or from another country.

Aaron, you are quite silly iffen you think it will be better for America if one refused such money.

Iffen ya can't get them to quit giving it away, ......... then get your share of it.

cheers

It makes no sense for Congressman Paul not to include earmarks for his district. When you're in a minority of less than 1%, you know you can't possibly win the battle now or in the near future. All that would result in is the 22nd district of Texas would be paying for bacon for everybody else. It wouldn't have any kind of impact on the problem. All it would do is cost Americans the best Representative in the House because the people of that district would stop reelecting him. That would be stupid and Ron Paul is a lot of things, but stupid isn't on the list.

Do as I say, not as I do, just like Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard. HMMMM

SheikBen wrote:I think that McCain avoiding earmarks shows a level of integrity. I am impressed. I also don't blame Ron Paul for wanting to get re-elected. So I guess my point is that while I don't think Ron Paul is doing wrong, I think that McCain on this matter is doing very well, indeed.

Mike,

You don't see it's hypocritical that Paul wails against the unconstitutionality of ear marks while requesting millions or that he says he voted against the bill and then request funding from it?