Video: Michael Scheuer says "ISRAEL is not worth a single american life or dollar"

Again, I do not think they should be used for police functions, or without cause inside the United States. I still think there is a distinction to be made between inside and at the border.

That is also what lead to my joke about "invading" Canada and Mexico. I see a huge difference between guarding our borders with military, and using them inside the borders.

 

Would you allow the military to use deadly force if people penetrate the border? Illegals make tunnels to get into the country, and would knowingly skirt a military blockade. Kill them?

 

Doesn't our law enforcement shoot at domestic criminals? How should someone seeking to gain entry illegally be any different?

 

When fired upon or if a suspect poses a danger or something. And almost immediately, they are put on leave and investigated to make sure the shooting was warranted.

Do you think the military should be put under these constraints?

Is that a yes, I think the military should target and gun down civilians? Given that you say the troops are acting like terrorists in another thread. Maybe you should think through your position a little bit more.

 

Right. I'm saying that someone seeking to enter the country illegally poses a danger. Like uhm, terrorism or criminal exploitation of the social system.

I think that Border Guards could have tougher enforcement leeway than Police.

And yes, I think that part of the National Defense is having secure borders.

We're talking about citizens vs. aliens, not civilians as one homogeneous group.

I did not say that the troops were acting like terrorists. I said that they were being given orders that are terrorist. Chain of command, the crime is with the person giving the order, not the person executing it (generally).

 

So kids too, or just adults?

And what you say to the mexican/canadian government after you institute a policy of gunning down their citizens?

Just obeying orders didn't work in ww2, and it doesn't work now. If you believe the order is terrorist, you believe the act is terrorist and therefore the troop is a terrorist. Don't hide.

 

Well, it would probably be the start of an effective immigration policy.

 

The same thing we tell the Iraqis.

Seriously, there is no perfect solution. But if a Canadian or Mexican gets shot in the USA for breaking the law, how is this significantly different if it occurs at the border?

I'm not interested in this trap that you can't damn the order without damning the troops. And then the Nixon Gang assault that I don't support the troops.

 

Is that a yes that you'd gun down kids too? It sure wasn't a no.

It might help to realize that crossing the border isn't a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. So what you are suggesting is that we gun down families for an offense that wouldn't even warrant jail time?

More fun would be to build a catapult.

Take heart, Guerilla. The fletch guy wouldn't even touch the topic of gunning down illegals. At least you are willing to stand for it.

What trap? Just explaining reality. "Nixon Gang" is just a shield when there is nothing intelligent to respond with.

 

Yes, that's it, let me answer now that you've drawn me out of my hole.

My stance is that we should detain those who attempt to enter this country illegally. I don't believe killing is justified unless absolutely necessary, or if we felt that particular person was of high risk (suspected terrorist). I cannot comprehend how a group of people who support the mainstream Republican stance that war with Iraq is still justified, because of weak ties to terrorism, and a stance that we are at constant risk for terrorism in this country, does not believe we need an immediate (as in yesterday!) use of military to secure our border from these terrorists.

As I've said before, if 20 million Mexicans can cross the desert to do it, what's stopping a group of highly motivated, well-funded Islamic jihadists?

 

Isn't this what we do, albeit pretty incompetently? so, you cannot possibly think its a military action, then. You are describing a police/immigration problem perfectly. So what you should be for, instead of a military action, is better funding for border patrols - which has always been the weak point in the system anyways.

what terrorists? are illegals terrorists now? Border security is important. Why do you think the "mainstream republicans" (outside washington) were against the shamnesty bill a few months ago - because it granted citizenship (or a path) to people who were criminals and didn't do anything to fix the actual problem.

What you should really be surprised about is someone who (ostensibly) believes in states rights and limited government supporting the federal government lining up soldiers at our border and using the military for something it clearly isn't designed for.

 

You've been a solid fellow to debate with for the last few weeks. I appreciate that, and don't include you in the Nixon Gang. Because you've stuck to and demanded I stick to topic, there is respect.

I'm not trying to divert this, but humor me for a moment. You are ok with the war in Iraq right? Let's say it is for our national security.

Children are getting killed there. Innocents are being killed there. Civilians.

Now my stance is not that we should roll over, but if our borders aren't secure, what value is this war in Iraq. And hence, I'm ok with force, deadly force to defend our borders. Not that shooting is the first recourse, but that the border needs to be able to defend the nation aggressively.

Do you see where I am coming from?

It's one thing to go to another country and have civilian casualties, a totally different thing when they come to your country illegally and challenge the sovereignty of the nation.

 

Yes, I will agree with you, we need to fix this problem one way or the other. Considering the ineptitude in Congress in solving this problem before heading overseas, the military was the first large, armed group of people I could think of that would be suited to guard the thousands of miles of our borders.

If we can solve it through another venue such as increased border patrols, than that would be acceptable to me, I believe.

 

Remind me, guerilla. Who kills those civilians and who is targeting them? Is it the US troops or people who use kids as bombs, put bombs under schools, blow up markets, blow up hospitals. US troops may kill civilians, but they do not target them as you suggest.

Defending the border and gunning down kids is different. You can defend the border with more funding and better laws. The military is not meant for these types of police actions. It's an ongoing, mission without a perceivable end. That is not what the military is for. Military kills people and breaks things - that's what it does.

 

I'm not suggesting it, nor am I suggesting that people at the border would be targeted anymore than a child in Iraq carrying a bomb. Let's remember here, I'm not talking about the invasion of Mexico or Canada, I'm talking about being tough on people who knowingly try to break the law in order to enter our country.

You're right, they are different. I recognize that.

 

You know what's interesting? DevilHellz has not made a single entrance into this thread to justify our support for Israel. I'm not surprised.

If I was in Israel, I certainly wouldn't have to defend the slanted, unnecessary backing and support we give to their country, at the detriment to ourselves. I'd just want to sit back and enjoy the weapons and money and hope no one ever questioned it.

 

I think it is laughable that Ron Paul is considered anti-Semitic. He's the only candidate AFAIK who has been endorsed by a Nobel Prize Winner.

Yep, that Nobel Prize Winner is a Jew. Milton Friedman.

But wait, could another high profile Jew also endorse Ron Paul?

Aaron Russo.

Wait, you mean to tell me there is actually a Jewish group for Ron Paul?

http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/

 

They obviously are just like Neturei Karta, Jews bringing pain upon themselves or whatever that group's stance and reasoning got twisted into. Believe it or not, not every Jew thinks supporting Israel is a de facto standard of American policy.

Side note: Bill Richardson in the Democratic debate said "Fundamental tenet of American foreign policy is to support Israel". Sad...

EDIT: R.I.P. Aaron Russo; great man.

 

i am sure that Israelis appreciate US friendship and israel have the full support of US
we should press hard to create a hospitable environment for peace between Israel and all of her neighbors as this would be what a friend would do

 

Geeezzz.. Even in a third world country like India, we do not have military to police our borders, we have Border Security Force for that, We use military only in war like situations, or in special terrains like Himalayas.

And the BSF is not allowed to use deadly force on civilians, as long as they are not posing a deadly threat. They arrest aliens and eventually deport them to their motherland.

Amazing how you guys advocate for US military to police and enforce borders on unarmed civilians.
Remember, the state police do not open fire on every criminal.

Its insane to think that military is policing the border and using deadly force on the civilians carrying their kids, looking for a better life...