For The Fans of Barack Obamma

[zoogs]

I agree that bush has done a horrible job with foreign policy, thats why i support Paul he feels we shouldn't be involved in other countries business(sounds good to me). theirs a reason other countries hate us, and its because we have been policing the world for the last 50 yrs. If we stay out of other countries business i think we would gain some respect around the world.

i never said invade mexico, i said we should put our troops on the border so illegals wouldn't invade us.

It sounds like Paul has an isolationist view, which is certainly a valid one - not one I agree with, but I won't argue with you there because it's a perfectly understandable standpoint.

But enforcing a DMZ equivalent situation on our border with Mexico - regardless of what it is - looks aggressive to Mexico. Right?

I could be wrong, but imagine we're sharing borders with a country, and then they decide, OK, we're going to have a massive military buildup on the border. So suppose that a lot of US citizens are illegally crossing the border...ridiculous, I know. But just suppose.

What would you think of that buildup?

Would you say, "Yeah, they've got a point. Yeah, their soldiers being there are for the best"? I don't think that's what we'd do. We'd say, "Holy crap." And send our own military to the border for good measure.

But then, what if we don't have a military anywhere powerful enough to even hold a candle to their border buildup? (Ludicrous for the US, but that's the case for Mexico).

We'd be able to do nothing, just watch as a mighty foreign power just pours in soldiers at the border zone. And that would frighten the hell of us, wouldn't it? Would you be OK with that?

 

[Blackshirtsguru]

My thinking is, it can't get any worse than it is right now. Health Insurance has never been worse.

Worse? Try Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

Or.....Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh or Larry "the toe tapper" Craig!

or...... clinton, mccain,........obama?!?!

Oz I respect your decision to support Ron Paul but the guy is way out there. I mean waaaaaaaaaaay out there! He is like the Ross Perot of the 20th century.

 

[hosker]

I agree that bush has done a horrible job with foreign policy, thats why i support Paul he feels we shouldn't be involved in other countries business(sounds good to me). theirs a reason other countries hate us, and its because we have been policing the world for the last 50 yrs. If we stay out of other countries business i think we would gain some respect around the world.

i never said invade mexico, i said we should put our troops on the border so illegals wouldn't invade us.

It sounds like Paul has an isolationist view, which is certainly a valid one - not one I agree with, but I won't argue with you there because it's a perfectly understandable standpoint.

But enforcing a DMZ equivalent situation on our border with Mexico - regardless of what it is - looks aggressive to Mexico. Right?

I could be wrong, but imagine we're sharing borders with a country, and then they decide, OK, we're going to have a massive military buildup on the border. So suppose that a lot of US citizens are illegally crossing the border...ridiculous, I know. But just suppose.

What would you think of that buildup?

Would you say, "Yeah, they've got a point. Yeah, their soldiers being there are for the best"? I don't think that's what we'd do. We'd say, "Holy crap." And send our own military to the border for good measure.

But then, what if we don't have a military anywhere powerful enough to even hold a candle to their border buildup? (Ludicrous for the US, but that's the case for Mexico).

We'd be able to do nothing, just watch as a mighty foreign power just pours in soldiers at the border zone. And that would frighten the hell of us, wouldn't it? Would you be OK with that?

isolationism is where one country doesn't have contact with other countries, paul is an isolationist in regards to the military, but he wants free trade with all other countries(not an isolationist way)

yes i would view it as an aggressive military act, and if mexico viewed it as an aggressive military act and built up their military on their boarder it would only help to keep illegals out of country even more.

their wouldn't be a war, if our gov. would inform the mexican gov on what we were doing(imagine 2 countries working together in peace, to solve a problem)....... I'd compare it to the korean border for the last 40 yrs. no wars have broken out. we have no need to invade mexico, mexico has no need to invade us...... why do you assume there would be a war?

Blackshirts, Paul is way out there in regards to the other candidates. But in regards to our gov. he's the only one that says we should minimize the federal gov. and give the power back to the state and local gov.

in other words he's the only candidate saying we need to go back to the constitution............less federal laws, and more local gov. - that doesn't seem waaaaaaaaaaaay out there. at least not imo.

what ideas of Paul's do you think are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there?

here are a few of his ideas if you don't know any

ky3CTT7Hw4s

 

[zoogs]

yes i would view it as an aggressive military act, and if mexico viewed it as an aggressive military act and built up their military on their boarder it would only help to keep illegals out of country even more.

their wouldn't be a war, if our gov. would inform the mexican gov on what we were doing(imagine 2 countries working together in peace, to solve a problem)....... I'd compare it to the korean border for the last 40 yrs. no wars have broken out. we have no need to invade mexico, mexico has no need to invade us...... why do you assume there would be a war?

My point is not that there would be a war. My point is there'd be an extreme souring of relations.

Imagine two countries working in peace - by military escalation? I don't think introducing military tension is a fair and peaceable way to go about it.

Mexico doesn't have a military that could even remotely hope to challenge ours. If we build up our military, they can't just build up their own and reach a balance. It wouldn't be a contest. It's like a huge buff bully flexing his muscles and making fists at a scrawny weakling - what's he going to do, make fists back?

I wouldn't compare it to the Korean border. I don't think you'd want a Korean-style border here. That stuff is CRAZY. It's probably the most heavily armed zone in the world, in terms of concentration. That situation is very tense, and not friendly at all. North Korea and South Korea are far, far, far from pals.

Besides, nobody is going to trust you when you shake your military might at them and just say "don't worry. This is what we're doing." And nobody should. Germany in world war II. "Don't worry, we're just reclaiming a bit of land that's rightfully ours. Don't worry, they shot some of our guys. We're not going to try to take over the rest of y'all."

I think you mean well by your idea, but I can't see it being implemented.

 

[hosker]

yes i would view it as an aggressive military act, and if mexico viewed it as an aggressive military act and built up their military on their boarder it would only help to keep illegals out of country even more.

their wouldn't be a war, if our gov. would inform the mexican gov on what we were doing(imagine 2 countries working together in peace, to solve a problem)....... I'd compare it to the korean border for the last 40 yrs. no wars have broken out. we have no need to invade mexico, mexico has no need to invade us...... why do you assume there would be a war?

My point is not that there would be a war. My point is there'd be an extreme souring of relations.

Imagine two countries working in peace - by military escalation? I don't think introducing military tension is a fair and peaceable way to go about it.

Mexico doesn't have a military that could even remotely hope to challenge ours. If we build up our military, they can't just build up their own and reach a balance. It wouldn't be a contest. It's like a huge buff bully flexing his muscles and making fists at a scrawny weakling - what's he going to do, make fists back?

I wouldn't compare it to the Korean border. I don't think you'd want a Korean-style border here. That stuff is CRAZY. It's probably the most heavily armed zone in the world, in terms of concentration. That situation is very tense, and not friendly at all. North Korea and South Korea are far, far, far from pals.

Besides, nobody is going to trust you when you shake your military might at them and just say "don't worry. This is what we're doing." And nobody should. Germany in world war II. "Don't worry, we're just reclaiming a bit of land that's rightfully ours. Don't worry, they shot some of our guys. We're not going to try to take over the rest of y'all."

I think you mean well by your idea, but I can't see it being implemented.

our relationship with mexico i could see turning a little sour, but is that any reason to not protect our border to the best of our ability....... my point is: Should we be running our government based on what other countries opinions are of us?........... no, we shouldn't, we should be doing what is in the best of interest of the U.S.A. if we shared borders with china or russia this wouldn't be possible, but we don't share our borders with them so this has the possibility of working imo.

so mexico doesn't have a strong military, so what, as long as we don't invade(if Paul were president we wouldn't invade) it doesn't matter.

It probably wasn't the best of comparisons...... but i was just saying 2 countries that don't get along (north and south korea) could do this, so why can't 2 countries that aren't enemies (U.S.A. and Mexico) do the same.

nobody would trust us at first, but after a while, as long as we didn't make any military advances, they would begin to see that what we were doing was just in the best interest of the U.S.A., and in the end if they still didn't trust us i wouldn't care, because we did what was best for our country.

 

[zoogs]

No, you're absolutely right - we shouldn't base our internal decisions on what other countries think.

But it's a totally different scenario when we're dealing with other countries. International relations and diplomacy are very delicate things. To make an analogy...if your roommate says, "You look stupid in that tie-dye shirt," doesn't mean you should stop wearing tie-dye shirts. But if your roommate says, "Stop leaving your socks lying all over the place, it's really inconsiderate." Then you should pause and consider that, yes, based on what someone else said.

The reason why Mexico's side has to be considered is because what we would be doing affects them. To say "screw what the world thinks, we'll do as we please" even when in the arena of international relations is exactly Bush's downfall.

Presidents don't last forever. Building up a military now just makes it all that easier for future leaders of the country to use it in ways that are other than what they were originally intended for.

I just think there are other, less confrontational ways to go about this.

 

[walksalone]

It narrows the pool to men who will usually view the military solution as the only solution.

When you mention Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and no retaliation, retaliation against whom?

Having served in the military does in no way make someone more suited to be President than someone who did not.

It does narrow the pool, but when a military decision is to be made, it stands to reason that more caution would be exercised.

Retaliation against those who committed said acts. We knew then who did those things, and we stood idly by.

And the people who committed said acts were not nations, but groups of people. There doesnt end up being anything to really attack.

It also stands to reason that a military man would be more prone to using force when diplomacy may be a better option.

And currently we're engaged with groups of people, but not nations. There was something that could have been done.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that diplomacy is very important in miltary matters to stave off loss of life, but there are times when those who ask for diplomacy are met with violence, then there is no recourse.

 

[hosker]

No, you're absolutely right - we shouldn't base our internal decisions on what other countries think.

But it's a totally different scenario when we're dealing with other countries. International relations and diplomacy are very delicate things. To make an analogy...if your roommate says, "You look stupid in that tie-dye shirt," doesn't mean you should stop wearing tie-dye shirts. But if your roommate says, "Stop leaving your socks lying all over the place, it's really inconsiderate." Then you should pause and consider that, yes, based on what someone else said. we've asked mexico to tighten up their border security,(in other words..... to clean up their socks) yet the problem continues. what are we to do, i say we tighten up our security, and clean up their mess for them.

The reason why Mexico's side has to be considered is because what we would be doing affects them. To say "screw what the world thinks, we'll do as we please" even when in the arena of international relations is exactly Bush's downfall We aren't doing what we please, we're doing what is necessary to protect our border. bush's downfall wasn't saying screw the world, his downfall was him attacking a country that wasn't a threat to our national security

Presidents don't last forever. Building up a military now just makes it all that easier for future leaders of the country to use it in ways that are other than what they were originally intended for. I didn't say we should build up our military, I said we should protect our borders with our already existing military(we have all the military we need, its just spread all over the world protecting other countries borders). we can't go to war without a declaration of war from congress..... congress wouldn't declare war on mexico. so really future presidents wouldn't be able to invade mexico, without reason(the war in iraq, is an illegal war, same with the vietnam, and korean war).

I just think there are other, less confrontational ways to go about this. name a few ideas, I'm open to other suggestions.

 

[hosker]

Ron Paul's six point plan on border security:

1.Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3.No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4.No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5.End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6.Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

 

[walksalone]

There's one problem with the illegal immigrants, sense of entitlement. While I lived out in california, I confronted this daily.

I have an immense problem with giving them anything, except a ride back across the border. We should be less worried about them, and more about our veterans, folks that have volunteered to protect this nation.

 

[hosker]

There's one problem with the illegal immigrants, sense of entitlement. While I lived out in california, I confronted this daily.

I have an immense problem with giving them anything, except a ride back across the border. We should be less worried about them, and more about our veterans, folks that have volunteered to protect this nation.

if you haven't looked into ron paul, you should....... it sounds like you have a couple things in common, maybe more!

 

[zoogs]

walksalone, can you expand on that? I can't help but sympathize with their cause, however illegal it may be. They're coming from a ridiculously poor life, something we can't even imagine because of all the things we take for granted. They are so desperate they do whatever it takes to cross the border into the 'land of opportunity' to make some extra money for their family, even if it's just picking oranges for part of the year.

What do they feel they're entitled to? People come to America to look for a better life, and they do desperate things and work hella hard to get what cannot be in their native land.

 

[Blackshirtsguru]

walksalone, can you expand on that? I can't help but sympathize with their cause, however illegal it may be. They're coming from a ridiculously poor life, something we can't even imagine because of all the things we take for granted. They are so desperate they do whatever it takes to cross the border into the 'land of opportunity' to make some extra money for their family, even if it's just picking oranges for part of the year.
What do they feel they're entitled to? People come to America to look for a better life, and they do desperate things and work hella hard to get what cannot be in their native land.

Some forget that is how this country was founded and based on. "Land of oppurtunity". People need to go back and trace their ancestry. They may be suprised at what they find.

 

[HuskerExpat]

walksalone, can you expand on that? I can't help but sympathize with their cause, however illegal it may be. They're coming from a ridiculously poor life, something we can't even imagine because of all the things we take for granted. They are so desperate they do whatever it takes to cross the border into the 'land of opportunity' to make some extra money for their family, even if it's just picking oranges for part of the year.
What do they feel they're entitled to? People come to America to look for a better life, and they do desperate things and work hella hard to get what cannot be in their native land.

Some forget that is how this country was founded and based on. "Land of oppurtunity". People need to go back and trace their ancestry. They may be suprised at what they find.

DEY TUK OUR JOBS!!!

uORAyORWRAA

 

[hosker]

I think we can all agree this is the land of the free, and we should never turn an immigrant away from the opportunities they have in this country. I'm just saying that they have the ability to do it legally, so they should do it legally.

if someone had access to a car, had the ability to drive that car, but didn't have a drivers license would you want them driving on the streets, or would you want them to get a license first?