http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg
You really need to do some writing on this one..
You really need to do some writing on this one..
There are 10,000 illegal aliens coming over the boarder every day. That is 3, 650,000 a year. After what happened on 9-11 are you trying to tell me that almost 4 million illegal aliens aren't a security threat? Just say that 5 % are coming from the middle east and are terrorist or have terrorist ties. That's 182,500 terrorist a year!!!!!!! Hell even 2.5 % would be 90000. There were only 12 terrorists but probably more on 9-11. Image what kind of chaos 100,000 could do. Yet President Bush wants to legalize people who break the law and come over illegally. It makes the people who follow the rules look like idiots. It's going to make us look like idiots for not shutting down the boarder and completely over hauling the INS when something happens that's worse than 9-11. The INS renewed the terrorists visas after 9-11 happened!!!!!I look at it like this....We, the US have all of these immigrants coming into our country every day...we have all this fairness **** that anybody can just come in and make themselves at home...But when It comes down to us wanting to leave, they pull this ****....that's ludicrous...
That's what I keep saying, but I was starting to think I was alone.There are 10,000 illegal aliens coming over the boarder every day. That is 3, 650,000 a year. After what happened on 9-11 are you trying to tell me that almost 4 million illegal aliens aren't a security threat? Just say that 5 % are coming from the middle east and are terrorist or have terrorist ties. That's 182,500 terrorist a year!!!!!!! Hell even 2.5 % would be 90000. There were only 12 terrorists but probably more on 9-11. Image what kind of chaos 100,000 could do. Yet President Bush wants to legalize people who break the law and come over illegally. It makes the people who follow the rules look like idiots. It's going to make us look like idiots for not shutting down the boarder and completely over hauling the INS when something happens that's worse than 9-11. The INS renewed the terrorists visas after 9-11 happened!!!!!
If he wants to legalize them they can enlist in the military for citizenship. Someone was talking about this on a radio show and I guess they don't have to enlist if they are from another country. On top of that we were told that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the United States. Now no one seems to remember that and it's about freedom for the Iraqi people.
What are you talkin' about?? Where did I say that??There are 10,000 illegal aliens coming over the boarder every day. That is 3, 650,000 a year. After what happened on 9-11 are you trying to tell me that almost 4 million illegal aliens aren't a security threat?
I didn't say you said that. The question wasn't directed towards you. It was just a rhetorical one.What are you talking about?? Where did I say that??
Oh, well then at ease soldier....LOL my bad bro...I didn't say you said that. The question wasn't directed towards you. It was just a rhetorical one.
What's the cause? The fist reason was a good cause. Iraq was a threat to us. Sadam was trying to acquire or had acquired WMD. What's the cause now? Is it giving freedom to people in a place that haven't wanted it for 2000 years? Is it setting up a democracy in a place where everything is going to go to hell the minute we pull out?What makes me any better off than them?? OTOH, if I'm going over there to fight then I'd better be fighting for a cause. I'd hate to get shot at all the while Bush decides that he's had enough and pulls out or does something else retarded...
The notion that we need illegal immigrants here is completely a false one. When you are flooded with Illegal aliens it drives down the wages of everyone else because they are willing to do the work for much less. What will happen is no one will want to do certain jobs at the prices that they were paying the illegals, so they will have to raise the wages to the point where people are willing to do it. It is also completely false that it will cost our government billions if we get rid of them. The first thing they do when they get here is to go on welfare (there was a story about this in Newsweek where they were all going to a certain town because the welfare system in the town was so good. Long story short, the town is going bankrupt), we have to pay for their health care when they go to the emergence room, we have to pay for their children to go to school, we have to pay when they go to prison and when they go through the legal system. Many times they send a good chunk of the money they make (if they are working) back to the countries they are from so the local economies don't benefit from them either. The fact is illegal aliens cost us money. They also take a toll on the educational system. If the children of illegal aliens flood the school system it costs the town money as well. In the town in the Newsweek article the education system in the town was also in shambles because they couldn't handle all the kids coming in. It also forces the school to hire ESL teachers. Another aspect to this is that for some reason they don't feel the need to learn English. This in turn dumbs down and slows down the pace of the classes they are in. So they kids who can speak English education suffers because of this.But they fact we need the illegals, esp from Mexico. If they stopped coming who would cook your food, clean your hotel room and every other crap job out there. I work in the food industry and they do all the cooking and cleaning. Plus alot (not all) pay taxes. That billions of government dollars down the drain if they stop letting in illegals.
Seeing how they don't have social security numbers, it is more likely that if they are working that they are getting paid under the table. In the left coast for example the illegals wait at a certain place and day laborers pick them up. They get paid for the day under the table. On top of that, who cares if they are paying taxes or not? That isn't the issue. The fact is they are breaking the laws of the United States. The are many immigrants who are following our laws and the process to come in to this country legally. Why don't the rules apply to the people who are going to contribute the least to this country? Why should they get a free pass? Instead we should be letting in the people who would contribute the most.Plus alot (not all) pay taxes.
Nah man, I hear what you're saying. But the reason we're still over there is because of security reasons. The number one reason that the public was told why we're going to war is for the liberation of the Iraqi people. After a year we still haven't liberated them due to republican guard troops still fighting in small groups as well as Saddam followers, activists, etc....I totally agree with everything VG has had to say. I am proud to be an American, and I've always said that if needed, I would go to war. But the more and more I think of it, I'm wondering why? I understand that my American brothers and sisters are being killed, but I just don't see a justified reason for us to be over there still. We took out Saddam, now lets get the **** out. Like VG said, as soon we leave things will change for the worst again. Jergo, you are a better man and American citizen than I am..call me a coward if you want, but I think I'm with Colossus on this one.
Fuckin' a on that. Id state my opinion by VG pretty much nailed it so Ill save the bandwidth. Our government better get its head out of its ass, because this great nation of ours is going to hell in the politically correct handbasket faster than I ever thought it would. Sometimes, you just have to kick ass and take names, and **** what everyone else thinks.IMO if you going to ask one of our solders to sacrifice his life there better be a damn good reason
Clinton significantly cut military personnel under his presidency. Then were have troops stationed every where and are fighting two wars so our military is spread pretty thin right now. There was a military guy ( I forget his name) who said that we need at least 200,000 troops on the ground in Iraq in order to be successful. I think we have about half of that.wait...why would we need a draft...aren't current troop numbers sufficient? or am i just misled?
The problem is Iraq never really had anything close to a democracy and they aren't really a threat to us. I think the closest one was before Sadam and it didn't last too long. So if we waste our time, money, and American lives to set up a government , it's more likely than going to fall apart unless we occupy Iraq indefinitely. Even then there are still going to be bombs and snipers talking shots at our troops and members of the government. I guess my position they said there were WMDs and they either weren't there to begin with aren't there now. The government can't remain stable so why waste our time, money, and most importantly peoples lives. I believe the government has a great responsibility to our troops and members of our troops families to make sure that they keep them as safe as possible and that troops should only have to make the ultimate scarifies only when absolutely necessary. So if a bunch of terrorist are shooting at us from a "holy place" instead of being politically correct and worrying what the world thinks or if we are going to hurt someone's feelings by destroying a holy place, we shouldn't think twice about turning it into a crater.I think that if the country needs people to help defend our way-of-life then no matter how stupid people may think it is, IMO its still our duty to defend our country....you have your own opinion, thats fine man...this is America and thats what this country is about...
What??...oh so 9/11 wasn't a threat to us?? If you really think that Saddam and OBL aren't fighting the same war, then you're truly naive...The problem is Iraq never really had anything close to a democracy and they aren't really a threat to us.
Umm...there have been findings of materials that are used in the manufacturing of WMD...I guess my position they said there were WMDs and they either weren't there to begin with aren't there now.
Oh, so 9/11, all the terror attacks, this stupid scale that Tom Ridge uses for the "heightened terror alert" among other things that I could ramble on about but choose not to isn't sufficient enough reason to take these bastards out??I believe the government has a great responsibility to our troops and members of our troops families to make sure that they keep them as safe as possible and that troops should only have to make the ultimate scarifies only when absolutely necessary.
First you say that we shouldn't be at war unless its absoultely necessary, but then go on to say that we should just nuke the place?? So which is it?? Nah man, it doesn't work like that....You gotta first try out less destructive ways and then at your last resort do what you gotta do with WMD....So if a bunch of terrorist are shooting at us from a "holy place" instead of being politically correct and worrying what the world thinks or if we are going to hurt someone's feelings by destroying a holy place, we shouldn't think twice about turning it into a crater.
First of all I didn't say any thing about 9/11 not being a threat. I didn't say anything about Sadam and OBL not fighting the same war either . There has been several stories in the news about an Iraq/ Al Qeda link. There is also some circumstantial evidence that Sadam might have supplied the 9-11 terrorist with Anthrax. What I said was that in it's current situation Iraq isn't a threat to us. With the news that North Korea sending nuclear materials to another middle eastern country I consider that more of a threat to America than Iraq is right now.What??...oh so 9/11 wasn't a threat to us?? If you really think that Saddam and OBL aren't fighting the same war, then you're truly naive...
There is 100 other thing that our government should of done before invading another country. First of all, the 9-11 terrorists didn't fly a plane over here from Iraq or Afghanistan. They were all ready inside the united states. Second our own intelligence agents failed to prevent it. So the cause of 9-11 was primarily a problem with our owns country's security on our airlines, problems with the INS, and a break down of our intelligence agencies. We have not addressed any of these problems. We should have fired the heads of the CIA and FBI right after 9-11. We should have shut down the borders. We haven't done this in fact we want to legalize the people breaking the laws by coming over the boarders. We needed to completely over haul the INS. After 9-11 they renewed the terrorist visas. (that is how inept they are), We haven't done anything with that. With airport security instead of getting security professionals in there they just federalized the inept non English speaking airport employees. All the terrorist have been middle eastern yet in the current PC atmosphere of racial profiling is wrong they check 80 year old grandmothers instead of someone with the name Omar. That is for starters what we should of done.Oh, so 9/11, all the terror attacks, this stupid scale that Tom Ridge uses for the "heightened terror alert" among other things that I could ramble on about but choose not to isn't sufficient enough reason to take these bastards out??
The problem is we are at war now. My position is since we are now there we should fight the war to win and protecting Americans solders should be our first priority. So if we have the choice of sending 250 troops in to a hostile town and let the locals take pot shots at them or turn the town into a parking then send the solders in. I will choose to turn the place into a parking every single time. If we continue to let people shoot at us from a church and not allow our troops to fight back because the church is a holy place, I think we should pull out. In all honestly I think this war is unwinable unless we change our tactics.First you say that we shouldn't be at war unless its absoultely necessary, but then go on to say that we should just nuke the place?? So which is it?? Nah man, it doesn't work like that....You gotta first try out less destructive ways and then at your last resort do what you gotta do with WMD....
I don't like the way things are being done for the most part, but you gotta stand behind your country if things and others are threatening it....
Ok lets say you have the option of sending in 500 troops into a hostile city. The enemy is mixed in with the population and your troops can't tell the difference between them. It is a city which means there are many tall buildings and is likely snipers will be firing at your troops. There is a 50% mortality rate for your troops. Do you bomb the city which will significantly increase the mortality rate and then send your troops in or do you let 250 troops die?Nah man, it doesn't work like that....You gotta first try out less destructive ways and then at your last resort do what you gotta do with WMD....
What if there were WMDs and Sadam shipped them to Syria? Then Syria becomes the threat not Iraq. What if the WMDs were in Syria but the Bush administration didn't want to go in there because of all the political pressure they were under over Iraq. What if the WMDs used to be in Syria are now in the hands of different terrorists cells and some of them are head over here?Umm...there have been findings of materials that are used in the manufacturing of WMD...
You also missed my first point was the war in Iraq has changed from originally being a clear and present danger to the united states to the purpose of the war to liberate Iraq. Seeing that Iraq never had democracy there, do you think it's worth sacrificing lives to implement a government that is bound to fail? If we can't or won't eliminate the people setting off bombs and sniping our troops, then we won't be able to stop them from doing that to it's own government officials, military, and police.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
The problem is Iraq never really had anything close to a democracy and they aren't really a threat to us.
What??...oh so 9/11 wasn't a threat to us?? If you really think that Saddam and OBL aren't fighting the same war, then you're truly naive...
Yes, you just proved you're worng with your own statements here...all the above is happening yet you don't think they're a threat?? Yeah, okay...that makes a lot of sense.First of all I didn't say any thing about 9/11 not being a threat. I didn't say anything about Sadam and OBL not fighting the same war either . There has been several stories in the news about an Iraq/ Al Qeda link. There is also some circumstantial evidence that Sadam might have supplied the 9-11 terrorist with Anthrax. What I said was that in it's current situation Iraq isn't a threat to us. With the news that North Korea sending nuclear materials to another middle eastern country I consider that more of a threat to America than Iraq is right now.
LOL...I just love how people balme everything on other people here as in the CIA/FBI...There is 100 other thing that our government should of done before invading another country. First of all, the 9-11 terrorists didn't fly a plane over here from Iraq or Afghanistan. They were all ready inside the united states. Second our own intelligence agents failed to prevent it. So the cause of 9-11 was primarily a problem with our owns country's security on our airlines, problems with the INS, and a break down of our intelligence agencies. We have not addressed any of these problems. We should have fired the heads of the CIA and FBI right after 9-11. We should have shut down the borders. We haven't done this in fact we want to legalize the people breaking the laws by coming over the boarders. We needed to completely over haul the INS. After 9-11 they renewed the terrorist visas. (that is how inept they are), We haven't done anything with that. With airport security instead of getting security professionals in there they just federalized the inept non English speaking airport employees. All the terrorist have been middle eastern yet in the current PC atmosphere of racial profiling is wrong they check 80 year old grandmothers instead of someone with the name Omar. That is for starters what we should of done.
Damn, for the umpteenth time I gotta post this...I said, I don't agree with some or should I say most of the tactics that are being used in this war, but you gotta try out less destructive ways first, and then resort to WMD lastly..and we as a whole should stand behind our country as long as the opposition are considered a threat, in which they are, but your too bullheaded to listen to reason, eventhough you just proved my point above like I already posted...The problem is we are at war now. My position is since we are now there we should fight the war to win and protecting Americans solders should be our first priority. So if we have the choice of sending 250 troops in to a hostile town and let the locals take pot shots at them or turn the town into a parking then send the solders in. I will choose to turn the place into a parking every single time. If we continue to let people shoot at us from a church and not allow our troops to fight back because the church is a holy place, I think we should pull out. In all honestly I think this war is unwinable unless we change our tactics.
Ok lets say you have the option of sending in 500 troops into a hostile city. The enemy is mixed in with the population and your troops can't tell the difference between them. It is a city which means there are many tall buildings and is likely snipers will be firing at your troops. There is a 50% mortality rate for your troops. Do you bomb the city which will significantly increase the mortality rate and then send your troops in or do you let 250 troops die?
SO what?? Saddam inititated it, so he must go down....at the least be treated as an example....the fact is, that he had them when he wasn't suppossed to, that was illegal according the UN...What if there were WMDs and Sadam shipped them to Syria? Then Syria becomes the threat not Iraq. What if the WMDs were in Syria but the Bush administration didn't want to go in there because of all the political pressure they were under over Iraq. What if the WMDs used to be in Syria are now in the hands of different terrorists cells and some of them are head over here?
I said that IRAQ IS CURRENTLY NOT A THREAT. Notice that I did not say they weren't a threat back then.Yes, you just proved you're worng with your own statements here...all the above is happening yet you don't think they're a threat?? Yeah, okay...that makes a lot of sense.
Did I say everything can be prevented? You need to start reading what I actually said instead jumping to your own conclusions.Jego you also need to do some reading on subjects that we are debating. Many of the 9-11 terrorist were on the CIA and FBI watch list yet they got visas to come into the country. After 9-11 they renewed those visas. You don't think that is a problem? Lets do nothing about that because nothing can be prevented?They also had box cutters not plastic. The FBI nabbed one of them in our but failed to search his computer because of the bureaucratic red tape. What if the plans were in the computer? Did you even know any of this?What I am saying is learn from our mistakes so what what happened doesn't happen again. So far we have not done that.If you really think that EVERYTHING can be avoided like you imply, then I feel sorry for you. The FBI/CIA should have been able to prevent this?? What, are they like guardian angels sent from god himself?? This isn't a perfect world dude, abd I honestly don't understand why people like yourself think that things like this can be prevented...thats so outrageous, and btw, the terrorists on 9/11 had a sharpened piece of plastic and they used that to take over the planes....so no more plastic on planes now, correct?? LOL....you amaze me more and more everytime you post....
Ok then by the scenario that you didn't answer........ you would choose to let the 250 solders die then?Damn, for the umpteenth time I gotta post this...I said, I don't agree with some or should I say most of the tactics that are being used in this war, but you gotta try out less destructive ways first, and then resort to WMD lastly..and we as a whole should stand behind our country as long as the opposition are considered a threat, in which they are, but your too bullheaded to listen to reason, eventhough you just proved my point above like I already posted...
So what that the WMDs might be in Syria, out of Syria into the hands of terrorists? That was the whole point in going into Iraq. That also means the treat to the United States has moved.SO what?? Saddam initiated it, so he must go down....at the least be treated as an example....the fact is, that he had them when he wasn't suppossed to, that was illegal according the UN...
No, you implied it is what I meant...I said that IRAQ IS CURRENTLY NOT A THREAT. Notice that I did not say they weren't a threat back then.
What are you taking about? You said " all the above is happening yet you don't think they're a threat?? "No, you implied it is what I meant...
Please tell me that you are not saying that I said we should nuke them. I guess you answered my question then. You would take the 250 casualties then?Reconstruction is part of war....whether you like it or not....and that is what we're trying to do, but have found out that we still have opposition that's standing in our way...first use more tactical ground missions, and then if it fails, which it's clearly doing right now, use more firepower, more troops, more precision weapons...."nukin' 'em" is out of the question...
The way were are fighting the war they are a threat to our, solders, their civilians, and the government infrastructure that they are trying to set up. They have already killed one of the main people in the new government with a car bomb. Even if we do rebuild and set up a government how long do you think it's going to last? Maybe if we lucky they could end up like Israel but they still have problems with terrorist. When we rebuilt Japan we were there for about 7 years I think and they didn't have terrorist problems. So in other words we could be there a very long time.And if the right people get involved again....then they'll be a threat again...
Bro, learn to reason with an open mind, or don't at all....you said "I think we should turn them into a parking lot".....What are you taking about? You said " all the above is happening yet you don't think they're a threat?? "
There is a difference between what I said and what you think I implied. Your sentence above you are taking what I wrote and getting something totally different out of it.
Please tell me that you are not saying that I said we should nuke them. I guess you answered my question then. You would take the 250 casualties then?
Bro, learn to reason with an open mind, or don't at all....you said "I think we should turn them into a parking lot".....
Once again, I'm done debating with you...as you cannot present yourself correctly and get defensive when someone disagrees....you said what you said, thats why I quoted you, then you keep going back and saying that isn't what I meant, eventhough you didn't actually say thats what you meant...
So how am I supposed to know what you mean or didn't mean when giving a blanket statement??
Is the word Nuke used in that sentence at all? Nope. Here is what I said "So if we have the choice of sending 250 troops in to a hostile town and let the locals take pot shots at them or turn the town into a parking then send the solders in." Are you "implying" that I would send troops in after I dropped a nuclear bomb? Seeing that my position is to take as little U.S casualties as possible it's not likely.Bro, learn to reason with an open mind, or don't at all....you said "I think we should turn them into a parking lot".....
I am not getting defensive at all. I simply do not like it when people say that I said things when I didn't say them. If you are quoting me accurately find me were I said that "everything can be avoided" or that "I want to nuke Iraq" or my favorite "9/11 not being a threat" or "Sadam and OBL not fighting the same war". You can't because I didn't say them. Therefore it's pretty easy to see that you are not reading what I am saying. You left out the second part of the quote as well. Also find me were I said "what I ment was". I think what you will find is you saying I wrote something I didn't and me saying I never said that.Once again, I'm done debating with you...as you cannot present yourself correctly and get defensive when someone disagrees....you said what you said, that's why I quoted you, then you keep going back and saying that isn't what I meant, even though you didn't actually say thats what you meant...
Lets see who is editing. Pass them off? What does that even mean? If I said something than I'll be happy to admitt that I said it.BTW, editing your statements now and trying to pass them off isn't going to work....
It's called asking questions instead of comming up with your own blanket statement or conclusion that I didn't say.So how am I supposed to know what you mean or didn't mean when giving a blanket statement??
I totally agree with that...Okay.. I just know that if we continue to get into "little" wars like Afganistan and Iraq, then need for military personal will become greater than it is now.. and given some of the things that have happened as of late.. I would not just rule it out
The problem with getting into situations like these is what to do post war which is more of a problem than the actual war. The middle east isn't a stable place and governments have a history of not lasting very long.in the late 1980's and up to the end of the first Gulf war, IRAQ was a threat but it should have been taken care of THEN. not wait for freakin 12 years or more and then do it.
It's definitely a possibility. We know Clinton gutted the military. They were saying before Bush took office they we couldn't fight a two front war or even fight the gulf war the way we did. They have pulled troops out of north Korea to send to Iraq. If they do bring the draft back , it will be right after the election and they will do it quickly.Okay.. I just know that if we continue to get into "little" wars like Afganistan and Iraq, then need for military personal will become greater than it is now.. and given some of the things that have happened as of late.. I would not just rule it out
You guys see on the news today that another car bomb killed like 3 or 4 westerners?
How the hell are we suppossed to rebuild the nation when terrorists and other middle-easterners are killing our businessmen and workers?
And when the Iraqi's learned that it was an AMerican that occupied the vehicle, they danced around his body...what a bunch of fvcks...
They just Kidnapped another contractor as well. They had his son on the news. It was pretty brutal. Hopefully he will be ok.You guys see on the news today that another car bomb killed like 3 or 4 westerners?
You can't which is what I have been saying. In order to rebuild you need to make sure all your opposition is gone which they aren't. As I said before the opposition doesn't really have a central structure that can be destroyed so it is difficult to fight with conventional warfare.How the hell are we supposed to rebuild the nation when terrorists and other middle-easterners are killing our businessmen and workers?
It's hard to give freedom to someone who hates you and doesn't want it. Isn't it?And when the Iraqi's learned that it was an AMerican that occupied the vehicle, they danced around his body...what a bunch of fvcks...