- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,524
- Reaction score
- 6,769
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Apparently your assumptions are wrong about who we drone. I saw somebody talking about it the other day on TV--maybe on Charlie Rose. If a primary target has any interactions with others while in surveillance, apparently the others are deemed terrorists and are targeted too without bothering to figure out who the person is or the nature of the contact. We saw them talking to the person we are going to zap so they get zapped too.
I got no problem with good faith questions. Of course with Tererun, going all "you have to kill a few" you were probably right in asking after all.
I disagree with Tererun on that. I don't think we need to be killing people for a felony that is not a threat to life or property. Goes against everything we believe in. Another thing is when and if they were caught, they should immediately be handed over to civilian authority and not left to the military. The military are not police and should not be expected to use lethal force outside of defense, or detain prisoners under any circumstance. They are not trained police officers and should not be expected to act as such.
I have no problem with using military assets to secure the boarder as long as it is implemented under the watchful eye of civilian law enforcement.
I have been in both positions, military and civilian law enforcement. Trust me when I say you do not want to leave this in the hands of the military alone. This is not a war or invasion.
Apology to Tererun with the Moot mix up.
Evidently yes, my assumptions were wrong. But I still wonder if we would be willing to use lethal force, drone or human, on our border with Mexico. I'm not saying we can't. I'm not saying we woon't. But I think I would rather we didn't. I'll have to mention my concerns to Mr. O. next time I lunch with him:roll:
If we do, the bodies will be stored in Eric Holder's safe. Nothing would surprise me anymore now that we live in a world where we keep electing people who are master manipulators with zero principles in their toolbox.
I figure unmanned fighters are in the not to distant future as well.
Go to that WASP link and you'll see we have plenty of unmanned fighters already. Or are you referring to when the aircraft will make the kill decision?
Then you ruin a good idea with overtly militant illegal crap. Oy.
Are we allowed to shoot unarmed civilians? Isn't there some global standard for use of lethal force? I'm just asking. I'm not taking a position.
You mean we had a choice? I voted for Johnson but you know how that went. We had a choice of crook A or crook B.
Wonder how that would work out during crop picking season? Think white boys will sign up to pick berries? I did it when I was around 12 - was pretty hard work.
I understand. We'd basically create a bunch of new small towns with their portion of the border (whatevers) as customers. It is a long border though and this will take many years. It sure would be cheaper and easier to issue national ID cards and deny all service to anyone without one (or a passport and visa). I really feel we're trying to do this the hard and expensive way and I think of how the powers that be have avoided this for generations. Did/do they know something we don't?
The border is not wide open at this point in time because the government just needs a few good ideas on how to secure it. The border is wide open because the special interests that our politicians represent want the border wide open.
Our elected representatives no longer represent us nor do they care what is good for the country. That is the reality that we are now faced with.
It's difficult for Americans to get your mind around that because it seemed to happen so fast, but there is no other way to explain the disconnect between Washington and the United States.
That's why you cut welfare in Detroit and advertise those jobs heck you can even give then a ride on Amtrak no more of this sitting on government benifiets waiting for a job to come to your area you go to the job.
I am not talking about taking drones into the mexican areas and droning people like we do in the middle east. I am talking about having a line where you are warned not to cross and then if you continue to advance deadly force could be used against people. before you get into it, I know that some military bases have such lines here in america, especially after 9/11. They do not shoot you the moment you get there, but there is a point where you can get shot for continuing to try and enter. They could easily use drones, jets, and helicopters to monitor approach, and to dispatch a much more mobile response to areas. if there was ever a heavily armed attempt like is said drug cartels may do or be doing they would certainly be able to respond to it much better than a force like border patrol who would not be initially prepared to deal with an assault.
This doesn't have to be an out of control military operation where we are slaughtering mexicans. There may be an initial time of a few deaths because people crossing might test the resolve of the military to shoot. I cannot say that it would be without deaths as to back up force you have to be willing to use it. I am just saying that a truely secured border would be much better accomplished through a military presence to secure it. It would also be cheaper, and a far better use for our military than foreign wars.
if people do not want to go this route perhaps they should rethink their immigration stance because this is what a secure border involves and if that bothers you then maybe a secure border is not the solution you are looking for. Paying people money to pretend to secure the border and not be willing to use deadly force to secure it only means the desperate or greedy people who try and cross it face little real consequence for making the attempt. So why not try crossing if you can make it since you get your reward if you make it, and you just a bit banged up and can try again if you do not.
No this is not what a secure border has to involve. It is haphazard and given by someone that has no experience with either the military or police. Does not have an understanding of either and is trying to say it's all or nothing. That is absolute crap.
The reason it is so hard to stop them is low numbers of border patrol staff with not the greatest budget. Your solution has some merit, but the all or nothing is not the answer. We might as well be North Korea.
Sorry no dice.
This is a better idea and we don't have to kill anyone. http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...e-border-patrole-agents-3.html#post1061974255
I got no problem with good faith questions. Of course with Tererun, going all "you have to kill a few" you were probably right in asking after all.
I disagree with Tererun on that. I don't think we need to be killing people for a felony that is not a threat to life or property. Goes against everything we believe in. Another thing is when and if they were caught, they should immediately be handed over to civilian authority and not left to the military. The military are not police and should not be expected to use lethal force outside of defense, or detain prisoners under any circumstance. They are not trained police officers and should not be expected to act as such.
I have no problem with using military assets to secure the boarder as long as it is implemented under the watchful eye of civilian law enforcement.
I have been in both positions, military and civilian law enforcement. Trust me when I say you do not want to leave this in the hands of the military alone. This is not a war or invasion.
Apology to Tererun with the Moot mix up.
So you just want to make a pretend effort like you are actually doing something and spend a whole lot of money pretending to do something instead of actually doing it.
I just say drop the pretense. It is way to expensive. Either do nothing and save the money to spend elsewhere, or do it right. Spending a lot of money in some convoluted hope that your efforts will keep out the people we know it is not keeping out is pointless when you want to accomplish something aside from pretending you are actually fighting against illegal immigrants. Throwing more impotent guards on the border in hopes it will make the mexicans think twice before crossing because some guard might see them and make them go back to start is not stopping them. If you put a wall there they will just climb it. They have nothing to lose for the attempt.
Where are the stats to back up your "all or nothing" proposal? What is it based on?
What would be the ramifications on this countrys economy and our relations with Mexico if we just started shooting Mexican nationals? What would be the ramifications if we started using armed tanks and predators on our unprotected Southern border?
You have thought nothing through and have no clue as to how such an asinine plan would play out. Then you say it's either that or let em in. No.
No we don't know if what I suggested would work or not as it has not been tried, period. You can dissmiss it in favor of your amature hour plan but as I have shown you have no idea what the ramifications would be.
As I also mentioned you have no military training or experience, none. No police training or experience and have no idea how this would or would not work or the costs. You are making assumptions based on amateurish deterrent. Then you try and give an all or nothing excuse which is nothing more than a partisan attempt to basically let em in or kill them.
As I said we are not North Korea.
You mean we had a choice? I voted for Johnson but you know how that went. We had a choice of crook A or crook B.
Wonder how that would work out during crop picking season? Think white boys will sign up to pick berries? I did it when I was around 12 - was pretty hard work.
Doubt it was worse than pulling tobacco which I did some too. Awful work.
Heya Fisher :2wave: .....Did some of that too, when I was down in Tenn. We were paid cash. Good day of work tho. Plus one got Paid well. Course that's going back about 30 years.
What do you think about the Guard or Reserve pulling Border Patrols? Always rotating in with the training like they do.
They have done it before. I have no problem with it. I am not sure the cost-benefit of moving those folks in and out as opposed to just more border patrol though. Have never seen numbers on the cost.
Don't they have go and train for a month in the Summer? I was under the impression some of them were going for training outside their own state at times anyways. I don't know how they could relate the cost. Especially since they have not determined what the real numbers for Border Security thru the LE's will be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?