Guardsmen overrun at the Border

US National Guardsmen have been attacked by gunmen on the AMERICAN side of the Mexican border, and were forced to retreat during the gunbattle. No Americans were injured. After forcing the Americans to retreat, the gunmen crossed the border back into Mexico.

I don't care what anybody else says. If Mexico cannot control its own people, who then cross the border and attack American personnel, then any attack from across the border should considered an act of war. There is a simple solution:

When our troops get back from Iraq, send them to the border. Then if there is an attack of ANY KIND, we simply invade Mexico. We cross the border as deep as we need to go to kill the enemy, then retreat back across the border, and stay right there, ready to invade again, if necessary. Meanwhile, anybody crossing the border with a weapon of any kind is to be shot on sight, no questions asked.

This would end the problem once and for all.

Article is here.

Situations such as this should not occur, and when they do it just underlines the fact that we should have a tightened border policy.

What ever happened to the wall being built? I believe it should be and immigrant passes should become easier and/or faster to obtain. This way everyone entering and leaving is documented.

danarhea said:

When our troops get back from Iraq, send them to the border. Then if there is an attack of ANY KIND, we simply invade Mexico. We cross the border as deep as we need to go to kill the enemy, then retreat back across the border, and stay right there, ready to invade again, if necessary. Meanwhile, anybody crossing the border with a weapon of any kind is to be shot on sight, no questions asked.
This would end the problem once and for all

Click to expand...

It worked in 1916-1917.

But I can just imagine the howls if it happened today.

The wall's a waste of money that wouldn't work in the first place. We don't need soldiers stationed all across the border, as that would be a knee-jerk overreaction, but we DO need a technological fence with sensors and camera and things of that sort, border patrol reading the signs off-site and responding to every illegal crossing over, and quick-response, fully armed soldiers also available for things like this.

If we did that, these sort of things couldn't happen, because there'd be no one right on the border to shoot at in the first place.

danarhea said:

US National Guardsmen have been attacked by gunmen on the AMERICAN side of the Mexican border, and were forced to retreat during the gunbattle. No Americans were injured. After forcing the Americans to retreat, the gunmen crossed the border back into Mexico.

I don't care what anybody else says. If Mexico cannot control its own people, who then cross the border and attack American personnel, then any attack from across the border should considered an act of war. There is a simple solution:

When our troops get back from Iraq, send them to the border. Then if there is an attack of ANY KIND, we simply invade Mexico. We cross the border as deep as we need to go to kill the enemy, then retreat back across the border, and stay right there, ready to invade again, if necessary. Meanwhile, anybody crossing the border with a weapon of any kind is to be shot on sight, no questions asked.

This would end the problem once and for all.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Thank God you are not in control for the enemy would have a field day with you as the insurgents and al-Qaeda are presently with President Bush.

You remind me so much of young President Bush and his disasterous "cowboy-mentality" approach that he adopted from the very beginning of his presidency.

No doubt your cure for the 'border situation' would end with terrorists flooding Mexico from within and the Middle-East in their effort to help the Mexicans fight American aggression at the border.

So, that's your answer to the attack on the Guardman, to majorily overreact?

Hasn't Iraq taught you anything? Have you not learned anything from President Bush's rush to war in Iraq?

KidRocks said:

Thank God you are not in control for the enemy would have a field day with you as the insurgents and al-Qaeda are presently with President Bush.

You remind me so much of young President Bush and his disasterous "cowboy-mentality" approach that he adopted from the very beginning of his presidency.

No doubt your cure for the 'border situation' would end with terrorists flooding Mexico from within and the Middle-East in their effort to help the Mexicans fight American aggression at the border.

So, that's your answer to the attack on the Guardman, to majorily overreact?

Hasn't Iraq taught you anything? Have you not learned anything from President Bush's rush to war in Iraq?

Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Bush's mistake was not attacking Iraq. We captured Baghdad in 2 weeks. His mistake was staying there.

What I would do is not anything like Iraq. We cross the border, we eliminate the threat with extreme prejudice, then we cross back into the US. Meanwhile, we keep armed guards at the border, ready to shoot anyone coming across who is perceived as a threat to security. That is a lot different than staying in Mexico, where members of an insurrection can continually take pot shots at us.

danarhea said:

US National Guardsmen have been attacked by gunmen on the AMERICAN side of the Mexican border, and were forced to retreat during the gunbattle. No Americans were injured. After forcing the Americans to retreat, the gunmen crossed the border back into Mexico.

I don't care what anybody else says. If Mexico cannot control its own people, who then cross the border and attack American personnel, then any attack from across the border should considered an act of war. There is a simple solution:

When our troops get back from Iraq, send them to the border. Then if there is an attack of ANY KIND, we simply invade Mexico. We cross the border as deep as we need to go to kill the enemy, then retreat back across the border, and stay right there, ready to invade again, if necessary. Meanwhile, anybody crossing the border with a weapon of any kind is to be shot on sight, no questions asked.

This would end the problem once and for all.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Works for me.
If they want to play hard, we can play hard!
If they can’t police their own we can send the Mexican government a constant supply of filled body bags.

Kidrocks, Do you have rocks in your head? Damn you dont even like the NG..:roll:

Simple solution that will:

1. Avoid taxpayer dollars spent.
2. Get around government pacification of Mexico.

An organization...Minutemen...whatever, leases or buys a 10 foot wide piece of land along the entire Mexican border. Landowners there, tired of constant use of their land to invade the US, would sell or lease such a piece of land for pennies if they thought it would help end the invasion.

Said organization, on gaining ownership of said land, takes whatever action necessary to defend their rights to protect their privately owned property...privately errected fence, deadly force, etc.

No jury, except perhaps the liberal nutcases in California, would find against anyone charged with violence in protecting said property.

BubbaBob

danarhea said:

You are comparing apples to oranges. Bush's mistake was not attacking Iraq. We captured Baghdad in 2 weeks. His mistake was staying there.

What I would do is not anything like Iraq. We cross the border, we eliminate the threat with extreme prejudice, then we cross back into the US. Meanwhile, we keep armed guards at the border, ready to shoot anyone coming across who is perceived as a threat to security. That is a lot different than staying in Mexico, where members of an insurrection can continually take pot shots at us.

Click to expand...

KidRocks is right, the two situations are totally comparable.

Why, just think of the devastation that would be wreaked if we stationed American troops in Texas and Arizona. The suicide bombings by the insurgents (excuse me, freedom fighters) would be out of control. We would be greeted as invaders, not liberators. Eventually we would just have to withdraw and let the border states return to their civil war.

BubbaBob said:

Simple solution that will:

1. Avoid taxpayer dollars spent.
2. Get around government pacification of Mexico.

An organization...Minutemen...whatever, leases or buys a 10 foot wide piece of land along the entire Mexican border. Landowners there, tired of constant use of their land to invade the US, would sell or lease such a piece of land for pennies if they thought it would help end the invasion.

Said organization, on gaining ownership of said land, takes whatever action necessary to defend their rights to protect their privately owned property...privately errected fence, deadly force, etc.

No jury, except perhaps the liberal nutcases in California, would find against anyone charged with violence in protecting said property.

BubbaBob

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t work bubba.
To many groups would buy up the land and post signs
"Welcome come this way, Cross here"

danarhea said:

US National Guardsmen have been attacked by gunmen on the AMERICAN side of the Mexican border, and were forced to retreat during the gunbattle. No Americans were injured. After forcing the Americans to retreat, the gunmen crossed the border back into Mexico.

I don't care what anybody else says. If Mexico cannot control its own people, who then cross the border and attack American personnel, then any attack from across the border should considered an act of war. There is a simple solution:

When our troops get back from Iraq, send them to the border. Then if there is an attack of ANY KIND, we simply invade Mexico. We cross the border as deep as we need to go to kill the enemy, then retreat back across the border, and stay right there, ready to invade again, if necessary. Meanwhile, anybody crossing the border with a weapon of any kind is to be shot on sight, no questions asked.

This would end the problem once and for all.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

What good does it do to send more troops on the border to do something that the minute men are doing for free?Just like the minutemen they can't arrest and or detain illegals,nor can they shoot at anyone attempting to cross the border illegal and just like the minute men they are putting up a measly fence.The minute men are doing this for free while Bush basically just dumped a bunch of money on the problem to make it look like something is being done.


The pc ******s would be screaming and carrying on if we had military forces on the border with the authority to use necessary force.

Quote
( Bush basically just dumped a bunch of money on the problem to make it look like something is being done.)
Except he did not dump any money on the problem.
And nothing much will be done.
It is a fact that the US agriculture system would be unable to function without the illegals that cross from Mexico, any politician worth his salt will flatly deny this openly, but will do less than nothing to solve what some see as a problem.
It is in fact a lot of hooha, brought about due to the mid terms. Now they are over, any concerns about illegals will wither as surely as did GOP hopes for a continued majority in Congress.

KidRocks said:

Thank God you are not in control for the enemy would have a field day with you as the insurgents and al-Qaeda are presently with President Bush.

You remind me so much of young President Bush and his disasterous "cowboy-mentality" approach that he adopted from the very beginning of his presidency.

No doubt your cure for the 'border situation' would end with terrorists flooding Mexico from within and the Middle-East in their effort to help the Mexicans fight American aggression at the border.

So, that's your answer to the attack on the Guardman, to majorily overreact?

Hasn't Iraq taught you anything? Have you not learned anything from President Bush's rush to war in Iraq?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, it's so obvious how similar, almost parallel, invading Iraq and occupying a deeply divided country full of religious fanatics with recumbent troop is almost exactly like retaliating against aggressors transgressing our national borders then return back within our borders once the threat is eliminated.

jujuman13 said:

Quote
( Bush basically just dumped a bunch of money on the problem to make it look like something is being done.)
Except he did not dump any money on the problem.
And nothing much will be done.
It is a fact that the US agriculture system would be unable to function without the illegals that cross from Mexico, any politician worth his salt will flatly deny this openly, but will do less than nothing to solve what some see as a problem.
It is in fact a lot of hooha, brought about due to the mid terms. Now they are over, any concerns about illegals will wither as surely as did GOP hopes for a continued majority in Congress.

Click to expand...

I do not buy that argument.

The Seattle Times: Local News: Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices

More than 7 million illegal immigrants work in the United States. They build houses, pick crops, slaughter cattle, stitch clothes, mow lawns, clean hotel rooms, cook restaurant meals and wash the dishes that come back.

You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.

The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.

The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.

Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.

At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.