There is no better use for our military than guarding our own border

[Right_in_Virginia]

There is no better use for our military than guarding our own border
Conservative Review, Nov 2, 2018, Daniel Horowitz

This is akin to a “Gaza moment” for our border. Thankfully, with Operation Faithful Patriot and the deployment of 5,200 troops, the president appears to be taking it as seriously as the Israelis take their border.

Evidently, our political class believes that the U.S. military was created solely for urban renewal and social work projects in Kabul, Baghdad, Raqqa, and Mogadishu, but not for the purpose of protecting our border. In fact, that is almost the only role of our military that our Founders envisioned. It is the one military deployment that the president can order unilaterally without a congressional declaration of war, because it is purely defensive. The president is right to deploy soldiers, because the time has come to treat our own border with as much respect and care as we would other countries’ borders.

Yesterday, President Trump announced before the world that we are indeed a sovereign nation and will finally treat our border – the national private property of all the citizenry – with the respect it deserves. There are already several thousand troops down at the border, and he intends to increase the numbers. It’s about time. We don’t want to spend $700 billion per year on the military so that it can referee Islamic tribal wars or nation-build overseas. Our first priority needs to be our own border.


More:  https://www.conservativereview.com/news/there-is-no-better-use-for-our-military-than-guarding-our-own-border/

[sneakypete]

Guarding our borders is in FACT,"Job number 1" of the US Military. It is WHY  they exist.

[mountaineer]

National security?
I'd think so.

[Dexter]

Cool, let's beef up national security and stop spreading our military forces all over the planet.

[sneakypete]

Cool, let's beef up national security and stop spreading our military forces all over the planet.

@Dexter

Good theory if you are blind as well as mindless. Europe didn't become a communist police state thanks to NATO,and because of this the USSR eventually collapsed. All this without having to fight the USSR.

Our war now is against Islam,and only a fool would think they aren't at war with us,and only a fool would think we shouldn't fight back.

We should BEGIN WITH A TOTAL BAN ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION. Absolute step number 1. WTH ever heard of allowing enemy combatants into your country so they could fight you on your own ground?

The most effective way to fight Islam is to cut off their funding. We can do this by shutting down their oil production. Hell,we can do this by making a serious threat to shut down their oil production unless they arrest and execute the member of the Saud Royal Family who are covering their bases by funding radical Islam.

Just because we need to fight doesn't mean we have to fight stupid by restricting our fight to the use of military weapons. Economic weapons are even more effective.

Once we get the various Kings in line,we need to start taking out the Immans. If they are replaced with other fundie Immans,continue to play "whack the mole" until no more of the goobers raise their heads.

The ultimate goal,of course,MUST be to destroy Islam itself. Killing off a bunch of retard religious fools with AK's solves nothing but Arabic population problems. The core problem is Islam,and we must use ALL means to destroy it.

[Dexter]

Europe...a communist police state

  Decide carefully if you want to stand by that statement or not.

We should BEGIN WITH A TOTAL BAN ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION.

I think it would be enough to just ban all immigrants that don't have the skills to make enough money to pay into the federal income tax. Nobody migrating to the states should be a net loss to the cost of our government. Most extremists are losers that can't operate in regular society. A complete ban on Muslims just won't happen. That position would be an incredible albatross for Republicans.

[sneakypete]

Decide carefully if you want to stand by that statement or not.

@Dexter

No,I stand by it. Europe turning full-communist was a close thing as it was. The only thing that prevented it was the collapse of the USSR.

I think it would be enough to just ban all immigrants that don't have the skills to make enough money to pay into the federal income tax.

That should be done also,but not instead of banning Muslims.

Most extremists are losers that can't operate in regular society.

Since they are funded and controlled by fundies from their home cesspools,that is irrelevant.

A complete ban on Muslims just won't happen.

Well,it wouldn't be necessary if we would just go ahead and do what we need to do,which is kill them all.

That position would be an incredible albatross for Republicans.

Yeah,compared to the continued terrorist attacks as well as the political moves they are making to change the nation from the top,that's a real threat,huh?

The TRUTH is if the Republicans came out in vocal  support of banning Muslims chances are the Dims would be destroyed in everywhere but places like Mn and NYC,which barely count as a part of American anymore,anyhow.

[Dexter]

No,I stand by it. Europe turning full-communist was a close thing as it was. The only thing that prevented it was the collapse of the USSR.

Russia isn't actually communist in the true sense of the word and neither is China because they both have free market economies. Actual communism/socialism is not at risk of spreading because it doesn't work in the real world.

That should be done also,but not instead of banning Muslims.

You have to be pragmatic if you want to win elections. This is a losing position.

Since they are funded and controlled by fundies from their home cesspools,that is irrelevant.

The point is people that are verifiable productive members of the world are far less likely to be extremists. Those nut jobs that get funded by terrorist groups probably don't have a history of being useful and productive people most of the time.

Well,it wouldn't be necessary if we would just go ahead and do what we need to do,which is kill them all.

You realize there are over a billion Muslims in the world, right? Most of those people are not extremists and just want to live their lives peacefully. Your solution is to kill them all? Really? You'd be making Hitler look like a small fry.

The TRUTH is if the Republicans came out in vocal  support of banning Muslims chances are the Dims would be destroyed in everywhere but places like Mn and NYC,which barely count as a part of American anymore,anyhow.

I really don't think so. 

[sneakypete]

Russia isn't actually communist in the true sense of the word and neither is China because they both have free market economies. Actual communism/socialism is not at risk of spreading because it doesn't work in the real world.

@Dexter

NOW they aren't,thanks to our winning the Cold War. It was a close thing,though. Without Reagan being elected,they would have won and it would have been democracies that lost.

 

The point is people that are verifiable productive members of the world are far less likely to be extremists. Those nut jobs that get funded by terrorist groups probably don't have a history of being useful and productive people most of the time.

What difference does that make as long as they are being funded and directed by people like the Saud Royal Family?

You realize there are over a billion Muslims in the world, right? Most of those people are not extremists and just want to live their lives peacefully. Your solution is to kill them all? Really? You'd be making Hitler look like a small fry.

Poor Bay-Bay! Yeah,we all know that Muslims are practically Boy Scouts that like to wear costumes,right? That's why they have been starting religious wars ever since the brain fart known as Islam was invented.

I really don't think so.

If you had left off the word "so", I would be agreeing with you.

[Dexter]

NOW they aren't,thanks to our winning the Cold War. It was a close thing,though. Without Reagan being elected,they would have won and it would have been democracies that lost.

Russia has never been a communist country as described by Karl Marx, ever. That ideology is not a risk because it doesn't work. 

What difference does that make as long as they are being funded and directed by people like the Saud Royal Family?

I think you're misunderstanding me. If we had a better vetting process for immigrants we could stop a lot of these guys because they don't have verifiable histories as productive members of society. No matter how much money the Saudis give them they are still losers and their life will reflect that.

Poor Bay-Bay! Yeah,we all know that Muslims are practically Boy Scouts that like to wear costumes,right? That's why they have been starting religious wars ever since the brain fart known as Islam was invented.

You're painting all Muslims as being responsible for the worst among them; that's ridiculous. Most Muslims are peaceful people that just want to live their lives without having their heads cut off by extremists or being blown up by the United States. Your suggestion is evil.

"Once men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

If we did that we would be no better than them, in fact we would be worse in my opinion.

If you had left off the word "so", I would be agreeing with you.

Throwing around ad hominem nonsense is unbecoming of grown people.

[sneakypete]

Russia has never been a communist country as described by Karl Marx, ever. That ideology is not a risk because it doesn't work. 

ROFLMAO! Denial is NOT just a river in Egypt.

I think you're misunderstanding me. If we had a better vetting process for immigrants we could stop a lot of these guys because they don't have verifiable histories as productive members of society. No matter how much money the Saudis give them they are still losers and their life will reflect that.

Correct me if I am wrong,but the ones that flew the airliner into the towers in NYC came here with college degrees as well as "clean histories" and plenty of Saudi cash.

Most Muslims are peaceful people that just want to live their lives without having their heads cut off by extremists or being blown up by the United States.

And you know this because you read it in Redbook?

 

Your suggestion is evil.

Your purposeful ignorance is what is evil.

"Once men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

Oh,well. Some quote entirely unrelated to the Muslim desire to take over the world and establish a Muslim religious police state is supposed to mean something?

If we did that we would be no better than them, in fact we would be worse in my opinion.

Of course that is your opinion. You are a globalist,and stupid enough you think you can control the Muslims.

[Dexter]

ROFLMAO! Denial is NOT just a river in Egypt.

What I said is true. Your opinion comes from a position of ignorance. I don't mean that offensively.

Correct me if I am wrong,but the ones that flew the airliner into the towers in NYC came here with college degrees as well as "clean histories" and plenty of Saudi cash.

It wouldn't be a flawless process, but banning all Muslims will never be realistic. Vetting as I've suggested is more reasonable and would do a lot to protect us. It's impossible to completely safeguard ourselves from terrorism.

And you know this because you read it in Redbook?

I know that because I was deployed to the Middle East and have seen it first hand. I've seen the suffering and the devastation. I've talked to the locals and learned about Muslim culture from a non-extremist perspective. You're simply wrong; I'm sorry. Most Muslims are peaceful people that want no part of extremism, but unfortunately it's hard for them to escape it. It's easy to be brave and stand up to extremists when you have an ocean and the U.S military to protect you from them. I wonder if you'd still be such a righteous tough guy if you were face to face with these extremists in the Middle East. Something tells me that you'd probably be crying and begging for your life when they put that blade to your throat.
 

Oh,well. Some quote entirely unrelated to the Muslim desire to take over the world and establish a Muslim religious police state is supposed to mean something?

Clearly that quote was completely lost on you.

Of course that is your opinion. You are a globalist,and stupid enough you think you can control the Muslims.

Do you really think a globalist would take an extreme position on immigration such as ONLY allowing immigrants that can pay into the federal income tax? Even Trump hasn't suggested taking it that far.

[sneakypete]

I wonder if you'd still be such a righteous tough guy if you were face to face with these extremists in the Middle East. Something tells me that you'd probably be crying and begging for your life when they put that blade to your throat.
 

@Dexter

My MOS was 11F4S. What was yours?

[Cyber Liberty]

Russia has never been a communist country as described by Karl Marx, ever. That ideology is not a risk because it doesn't work. 

That doesn't stop fools from trying it again.  Socialism/Communism was a demonstrated failure when Hugo Chavez rose to power, and he predictably turned Venezuela into a cesspool.  S. Africa is on that shining path, and will provide proof that even a first-world country can be converted to third-world in just a couple of generations through socialism.

There are many US politicians who want to do the same thing.  They're called "Democrats."  This is the battle we're fighting.

[Dexter]

My MOS was 11F4S. What was yours?

25F and then 25N, but I think you missed the point. Even going over there on deployment is not like living in that world. We have rifles and tanks and air support. I'm suggesting that if you had been born in the middle east you wouldn't be standing up to ISIS. People like to criticize regular Muslims for not standing up to these people. That's easy to say when you're not one of those regular people living in that nightmare.

[Dexter]

There are many US politicians who want to do the same thing.  They're called "Democrats."  This is the battle we're fighting.

I know some do, but if all or even most Democrats are actively seeking to remove the private sector (socialism/communism) then I must be pretty misinformed. They definitely want to raise taxes and launch some big programs.

[Cyber Liberty]

I know some do, but if all or even most Democrats are actively seeking to remove the private sector (socialism/communism) then I must be pretty misinformed. They definitely want to raise taxes and launch some big programs.

Sorry, did you miss Obastardcare?  The Rats voted as one to pass that bit of socialism.  I used to say some, but that distinction is getting more and more difficult to draw.  There are no more Scoop Jacksons in the Rat party.

[Dexter]

Sorry, did you miss Obastardcare?  The Rats voted as one to pass that bit of socialism.  I used to say some, but that distinction is getting more and more difficult to draw.  There are no more Scoop Jacksons in the Rat party.

If you're against expensive social programs that raise your taxes then say that; that's a fair and honest position, but social programs are not socialism/communism. If the Nordic countries are not communist then neither are most Democrats. These words have meanings, and the way they get abused is seriously detrimental to the possibility of good dialogue between opposing ideas.

[Cyber Liberty]

If you're against expensive social programs that raise your taxes then say that; that's a fair and honest position, but social programs are not socialism/communism. If the Nordic countries are not communist then neither are most Democrats. These words have meanings, and the way they get abused is seriously detrimental to the possibility of good dialogue between opposing ideas.

You are splitting hairs to justify creeping socialism.  That is enough for me.

[Dexter]

You are splitting hairs to justify creeping socialism.  That is enough for me.

Capitalism is not going to collapse into totalitarian socialism because of some safety nets. It's not happening in Europe and it wouldn't happen here. The Nordic countries have said quite clearly that their capitalism isn't going anywhere.

[Cyber Liberty]

Capitalism is not going to collapse into totalitarian socialism because of some safety nets. It's not happening in Europe and it wouldn't happen here. The Nordic countries have said quite clearly that their capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Socialism isn't a destination, it's a journey's whose final destination is Communism.  Or, as the wit P.J. O'rourke observed, "Socialism is Communism sold by the drink."

I say we've already taken too many steps in that journey.  It must be stopped, and it must be rolled back.  I don't give two shits what some Northern Europeans (who think they are way smarter than us hillbilly cowboys) think works for them.  I'll look to our own customs and Constitution, thank you.

Do you think I should be taxed to give money to others?  How much of what I earned belongs to you so you can do that?  Kindly tell me upfront what the bill is to be.

[Oceander]

Socialism isn't a destination, it's a journey's whose final destination is Communism.  Or, as the wit P.J. O'rourke observed, "Socialism is Communism sold by the drink."

I say we've already taken too many steps in that journey.  It must be stopped, and it must be rolled back.  I don't give two shits what some Northern Europeans (who think they are way smarter than us hillbilly cowboys) think works for them.  I'll look to our own customs and Constitution, thank you.

Do you think I should be taxed to give money to others?  How much of what I earned belongs to you so you can do that?  Kindly tell me upfront what the bill is to be.

Yes, you should, and so should I, and so should everyone else who makes a sufficient amount of money.  And most Americans hold to the same views.  The bill is there for you to see in the IRC.  I’d recommend starting with section 1, because that’ll give you the rates, but for a fuller view you’d have to check out the SE, FICA, and FUTA rates as well.  Then you can go to sec. 61 of the IRC and following for the details on the base to which the rates are applied. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, you should, and so should I, and so should everyone else who makes a sufficient amount of money.  And most Americans hold to the same views.  The bill is there for you to see in the IRC.  I’d recommend starting with section 1, because that’ll give you the rates, but for a fuller view you’d have to check out the SE, FICA, and FUTA rates as well.  Then you can go to sec. 61 of the IRC and following for the details on the base to which the rates are applied.

Sounds like I'd have to hire a tax attorney for that, because, if it's typical government jargon, I will not be able to figure out what my bill is.  Perfect:  In order to find out what the government is dunning me, I have to hire somebody.  Even that is dicey because if one calls the IRS for explanations 50 times, one gets 50 different answers.  Studies have been done to back that up.

Much simpler:  Government is not entitled to bill me whatever they choose.  If they decide it's necessary, then make the regulations something everybody can understand.  Not gonna happen, because government bureaucrats benefit when ordinary schlubs can't understand the rules.

How did a thread about putting the military on the border turn into another opportunity for you to impress me with the need to continue the byzantine governmental machine I just described?

[sneakypete]

I'm suggesting that if you had been born in the middle east you wouldn't be standing up to ISIS.

So what? Assuming for a moment you are right,WHY would that keep anyone else from stepping up?

People like to criticize regular Muslims for not standing up to these people. That's easy to say when you're not one of those regular people living in that nightmare.

Not as easy as making excuses for people that punk out just because you think you would punk out,too.

I repeat,if these people won't stand up on their hind legs and fight for themselves,their families,and their nation of birth,WHY would anyone think they would be an asset to the US when they have already proved they were losers at home?

[Dexter]

I repeat,if these people won't stand up on their hind legs and fight for themselves,their families,and their nation of birth,WHY would anyone think they would be an asset to the US when they have already proved they were losers at home?

You know what? You're right; we should just kill everybody. That's a completely sane and practical solution.