Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Mexico border wall: Trump defends emergency

441 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

John Bastien

Related image

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

I'm not referring to Mexicans.

I'm talking about the residents in "No Man's Land", the land between the border and the wall.

How do they carry on with only once gate in the barrier? 

The Americans living in that area won't be between the border and the wall, they will be behind the wall.  If necessary, the government will compensate them if they need to seize their property for building the wall.  They will receive sufficient funds to have a new home built behind the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
15 minutes ago, John Bastien said:

Image result for illegals are coming

"Walls work"... 

 

game-of-thrones-season-7-finale-27.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Bastien

Image result for defending the wall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
35 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If you're not joking...

How do the residents in "No Man's Land" lead normal lives?

He's got to be joking.  If he's not joking, he's an idiot.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

He's got to be joking.  If he's not joking, he's an idiot.

The only idiots I can discern here are the advocates of a liberal, multi-cultural utopia such as yourself.

And fyi: I NEVER joke about border security and immigration enforcement.

 

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you're a very passionate Trump supporter and your knowledge base on the subject exceeds mine. i will say that what Trump has declared isn't agreed upon by very many as a national emergency. you might very well be right, but you're in the minority not just in your country but for republicans too.  

There are legitimate reasons to dissent from his choice but most of his supporters realize that slowing the flow of illegals has become more critical, not less.  We see groups of THOUSANDS of Central Americans trekking to our border to DEMAND entry and those Republicans and Democrats you referenced seem to have no desire to do anything about that.  I read a piece the other day about a poll that was administered throughout Latin America and the Caribbean where the respondents were asked if they'd immigrate if they could, then they were asked WHERE would they want to go.  A percentage that represents 25-30 million or so said they'd come to the U.S.  I wonder how large a group showing up at our border would be considered too large by Democrats and establishment Republicans?  

I'm a passionate supporter of the nation I grew up in and still love.  I honestly believe that the Founders crafted a document that lays out in specific detail the best hope for humanity to be free.  Trump was and is a lifeline for a drowning nation.  He has horrible flaws but they aren't nearly as heinous as the 5th column would like you to believe.  Those people have become an enemy of our Constitutional form of government while hiding behind its protections.  I pray that a day comes when they are held to account for their actions.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
15 hours ago, Habitat said:

The whole business seems slightly surreal. I thought this idea went out with the Chinese Great Wall, or Hadrian's Wall. The Berlin Wall a minor example.

You should do a bit of reading about Israel's success with a barrier.  FTM, a more recent example is Orban's Hungary.  He stood up to the EU, said Hungary was a nation with a Christian past and culture and he saw the "refugees" as Islamic invaders.  He had a wall built in RECORD TIME and it was so effective that the entire route for the flow north had to be redirected.  Static defenses don't last in a modern combat situation but as peacetime protection for territory?  Of COURSE, they work. There are numerous examples - the easiest to see is the wall around Hollywood celebrities and politician's homes.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
41 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

The only idiots I can discern here are the advocates of a liberal, multi-cultural utopia such as yourself.

And fyi: I NEVER joke about border security and immigration enforcement.

 

So you think it's logistically possible to keep 150,000 troops deployed to the border?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.  That's more than were deployed to Iraq during the surge.  The cost of that would be astronomical.  It would cost almost as much to deploy troops to the border as it would anywhere in the world.  It's an idiotic idea to think deploying 10% of our active duty troops at all time is a good idea.  LOL, send your proposal to the White House...even the idiot in the oval office would think the idea was idiotic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
20 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

in some ways i can see your point on how hard it would be to do but its not impossible. we did it here in Australia. start wth the stores and then work your way down. you won't get everything but it will get harder to own and use those weapons. 

There are an estimated 300-400 million firearms in circulation in this country.  Think about those numbers for a moment.  You can BET those in government think about what they mean.  That doesn't mean that a future Prog president and Congress might not attempt it anyway.  I actually have begun to become convinced, more each day, that there is a movement ongoing in America to take us down from within.  Even a fool knows that you can't live in peace if you're constantly picking fights with neighbors.  There are just too many instances of irrational behavior by media and government officials to believe they could not understand the repercussions.  Or perhaps I'm giving them too much credit for intelligence?

Finally, the biggest argument against your logic is that the culture in OZ had its beginnings in Britain and there was no expectation of a right to own guns.  Non-Americans simply cannot seem to grasp the difference that makes.  Let's not derail this into a gun debate, please.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So you think it's logistically possible to keep 150,000 troops deployed to the border?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.  That's more than were deployed to Iraq during the surge.  The cost of that would be astronomical.  It would cost almost as much to deploy troops to the border as it would anywhere in the world.  It's an idiotic idea to think deploying 10% of our active duty troops at all time is a good idea.  LOL, send your proposal to the White House...even the idiot in the oval office would think the idea was idiotic.

I assume that you are okay with the current situation at the border?  How large a group of "immigrants" arriving at that border and DEMANDING entry would it take to make you want to stop them?  The wall and minefields should surround DC, IMO.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
4 minutes ago, and then said:

There are an estimated 300-400 million firearms in circulation in this country.  Think about those numbers for a moment.  You can BET those in government think about what they mean. 

If that fight ever happened, civilians would have no chance.  Soldiers are used to fighting against AK-47s and RPG's...they aren't worried about some old men with some handguns and hunting rifles.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
Just now, and then said:

I assume that you are okay with the current situation at the border?  How large a group of "immigrants" arriving at that border and DEMANDING entry would it take to make you want to stop them?  The wall and minefields should surround DC, IMO.  

You mean large groups going to legal ports of entry?  How would a wall deter that?  No one is OK with illegal immigration.  But I'm not dumb enough to think that a wall is going to help anything.  I personally don't even care if a wall does get built.  I just think the tactics of shutting down the government, and declaring a national emergency aren't the way to go about it.  But hey...I get a 2% raise out of it...so...cool.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
25 minutes ago, and then said:

You should do a bit of reading about Israel's success with a barrier.  FTM, a more recent example is Orban's Hungary.  He stood up to the EU, said Hungary was a nation with a Christian past and culture and he saw the "refugees" as Islamic invaders.  He had a wall built in RECORD TIME and it was so effective that the entire route for the flow north had to be redirected.  Static defenses don't last in a modern combat situation but as peacetime protection for territory?  Of COURSE, they work. There are numerous examples - the easiest to see is the wall around Hollywood celebrities and politician's homes.  

Fair enough, but every circumstance is different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
21 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

If that fight ever happened, civilians would have no chance.  Soldiers are used to fighting against AK-47s and RPG's...they aren't worried about some old men with some handguns and hunting rifles.  

That's what the British army thought way back in 1776. 

And guess what happened...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
36 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So you think it's logistically possible to keep 150,000 troops deployed to the border?  That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.  That's more than were deployed to Iraq during the surge.  The cost of that would be astronomical.  It would cost almost as much to deploy troops to the border as it would anywhere in the world.  It's an idiotic idea to think deploying 10% of our active duty troops at all time is a good idea.  LOL, send your proposal to the White House...even the idiot in the oval office would think the idea was idiotic.

Yes it is logically. Think about the money that would be saved if America stopped trying to play the world's policeman?

What does this country have to have military bases all over the world? Since when is it America's responsibility to protect South Korea, Ukraine, or the people of Syria or Venezuela?

If the American military were used exclusively to defend American borders and American territory and citizens, then the question of cost of deployment would be a moot point. 

Edited by Lord Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
18 minutes ago, and then said:

There are an estimated 300-400 million firearms in circulation in this country.  Think about those numbers for a moment.  You can BET those in government think about what they mean.  That doesn't mean that a future Prog president and Congress might not attempt it anyway.  I actually have begun to become convinced, more each day, that there is a movement ongoing in America to take us down from within.  Even a fool knows that you can't live in peace if you're constantly picking fights with neighbors.  There are just too many instances of irrational behavior by media and government officials to believe they could not understand the repercussions.  Or perhaps I'm giving them too much credit for intelligence?

Finally, the biggest argument against your logic is that the culture in OZ had its beginnings in Britain and there was no expectation of a right to own guns.  Non-Americans simply cannot seem to grasp the difference that makes.  Let's not derail this into a gun debate, please.

yeah you have a point about Australian's being a subservient society. its not the gun ownership but rather the obedience to abrupt laws with little to no recourse that sealed gun ownership in this country, i.e. regulation. still the fact remains that as a percentage gun related crimes are way down on the U.S. so grudgingly i accept that banning guns works. i think the single biggest advantage that American gun owners have is a powerful lobby. something that again is/was lacking in Australia. probably by design more than anything else. just to illustrate how effective lobbying can be... we have the modern curse of grown men wearing lycra and riding bikes in groups of one hundred on the weekends and during the week on our main streets. they have encroached onto our roads and usurped rights and privileges from motorists. generally what I'm saying is that they have right of way on our roads. they do as they like, and generally annoy everyone else because they have a very well organised lobby with a rank and file made up for the most part by professionals. Doctors, engineers and Lawyers etc. when driving you must give cyclists a meter and half wide berth at all times. which technically means that you have to change lanes when driving pass them. they pay no registration, no insurance which effectively means that in any incident the driver is at fault. madness. so what I'm saying is that as long as you have the NRA you have nothing to worry about. 

having said that i can see the day when ammo and spare parts become harder to obtain and registration of guns and accountability of ammo become the next targets. but the proliferation of 3D printers will negate reliance on gun stores. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
3 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

If you are referring to the Mexicans, they go about their daily lives on their side of the border.  If the Americans, then they do the same.  The only thing that changes is that American citizens of the border regions will now live in peace and security without having to worry about illegal alien murderers, gangbangers, drug dealers, rapists, and thieves trampling through their yards.

If you are referring to the Mexicans, they go about their daily lives on their side of the border.  If the Americans, then they do the same.  The only thing that changes is that American citizens of the border regions will now live in peace and security without having to worry about illegal alien murderers, gangbangers, drug dealers, rapists, and thieves trampling through their yards.

Edit, yes that sounds just idiotic if I would say it. Well done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
20 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Yes it is logically. Think about the money that would be saved if America stopped trying to play the world's policeman?

What does this country have to have military bases all over the world? Since when is it America's responsibility to protect South Korea, Ukraine, or the people of Syria or Venezuela?

If the American military were used exclusively to defend American borders and American territory and citizens, then the question of cost of deployment would be a moot point. 

 You ever play risk?  Do you understand history at all?  Why was Germany able to gain so much ground in WWII?  BECAUSE NO ONE WAS THERE TO STOP THEM!  There are countries that want to take over the world.  If the strongest country isn't in place to deter it, it will happen.  You're a fool.

Edited by Agent0range
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
25 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

That's what the British army thought way back in 1776. 

And guess what happened...

Musket vs. Musket is far different than a 22 caliber rifle vs. a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of an up-armored hummer manned by four Soldiers with M4s, night vision goggles, grenade launchers, and artillery and air support in case things get hairy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

The only thing that changes is that American citizens of the border regions will now live in peace and security without having to worry about illegal alien murderers, gangbangers, drug dealers, rapists, and thieves trampling through their yards.

None of the relatives I have left in Texas live in fear.  There are ranchers on both sides of my family.   They are pragmatic and used to dealing with situations independently. My grandmother told me when I was about 7 or 8 what to do if a steer charged me.  You stand  still until they get very close then you step to the side.  This from a 70+ year old lady 5ft. nothing who knew how to deal with life.

Stop being afraid and panicked.  Evaluate the situation and deal with it in the most efficient way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
21 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

 You ever play risk?  Do you understand history at all?  Why was Germany able to gain so much ground in WWII?  BECAUSE NO ONE WAS THERE TO STOP THEM!  There are countries that want to take over the world.  If the strongest country isn't in place to deter it, it will happen.  You're a fool.

No nation in their right mind would DARE invade the United States! LOL!

So let me get this straight, if a nation with the 2nd largest and the 1st most powerful military on earth deploys that military solely within its own territory and uses it only to defend itself, that nation will be subject to foreign invasion?

A nation with a 1.5 million men under arms, a powerful navy and air force, and 7,000 tactical nuclear warheads,  that uses this force to guard its own territory will be invaded and conquered in this day and age?

Really? LOL!

Do you ever stop to think about what you write before clicking the submt button?

 

Edited by Lord Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

I will be glad when this wall gets built to make some of you happy and sleep better.  

Meanwhile in spite of all of your wall references, we are not being invaded by the Mongol army.  We are not protecting ourselves from suicide bombers.  Your analogies are a bit lacking.  You know a big reason why the wall works for Israel?  Checkpoints.  They inspect every vehicle and pedestrian.

If Israel had built their wall as we want to do,  8 out of 10 buses full of suicide bombers and trucks full of drugs  would be waved through the checkpoint because there was not enough manpower to check them.  Burt that is what we want to do, check a small percentage.

I want border security and an end to the flow of drugs.  I want to listen to the best security experts we can gather, take their advice and solve the problem efficiently and without panic. Some people just seem to want a symbolic wall even if nothing else changes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

I will be glad when this wall gets built to make some of you happy and sleep better.  

Meanwhile in spite of all of your wall references, we are not being invaded by the Mongol army.  We are not protecting ourselves from suicide bombers.  Your analogies are a bit lacking.  You know a big reason why the wall works for Israel?  Checkpoints.  They inspect every vehicle and pedestrian.

If Israel had built their wall as we want to do,  8 out of 10 buses full of suicide bombers and trucks full of drugs  would be waved through the checkpoint because there was not enough manpower to check them.  Burt that is what we want to do, check a small percentage.

I want border security and an end to the flow of drugs.  I want to listen to the best security experts we can gather, take their advice and solve the problem efficiently and without panic. Some people just seem to want a symbolic wall even if nothing else changes.

A wall manned by 150,000 armed soldiers with authorization to use deadly force is hardly symbolic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

No nation in their right mind would DARE invade the United States! LOL!

So let me get this straight, if a nation with the 2nd largest and the 1st most powerful military on earth deploys that military solely within its own territory and uses it only to defend itself, that nation will be subject to foreign invasion?

A nation with a 1.5 million men under arms that uses this force to guard its own territory will be invaded and conquered in this day and age?

Really? LOL!

Do you ever stop to think about what you write before clicking the submt button?

 

spydj1elekqavr64xbno.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.