Posted on 06/21/2004 2:27:25 PM PDT by churchillbuff
IMHO this caller was symbolic of so many FReepers, Losertarians and other folk who blast Bush or others before him and would rather have Clinton, Gore or Kerry in office than give way an inch on their pet issues. There is a similar effort underway on a related thread regarding the Honorable Clinton Impeachment Manager Chris Cannon who wackos have targeted on similar grounds.
so we should remove all our troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Phillipines, et. al. ??? Let's have some assemblance of rationality and reasonability here people!
Do you think a wall will stop terrorist attacks in Israel ?
I would add the following three items to that list: (e) any illegal immigrant who is arrested for a crime must be improsoned for a period of not less than five years for violating this nation's immigration laws (regardless of whether he committed the original crime that prompted his arrest); (f) no illegal immigrant can file suit in a U.S. court as a plaintiff; and (g) any illegal immigrant involved in a civil lawsuit as a defendant will automatically have a default judgement rendered against him, and will forfeit any and all assets to the plaintiff in the case.
You see, that's where I don't follow you. Some of the hijakers were illegal aliens, right? So if they hadn't been let in the country, thing very possibly would have been different. Are you saying the hijackings could have been carried off with fewer people? I don't think we can know that for sure.
It's already lowered the number of terrorist attacks.
The 19 terrorists all came into this country on forged passports or legally.
So tell me how closing the border with Mexico helped that?
Thanks, I will.
The immigration nuts on this site irritate me as you can tell.
As I said, I believe that Medved was taking it in purely a literal way and didn't associate "closing the borders" with investigating terrorist who have exploited the legal ways to enter the country.
Technically, he's correct. The al Qaeda types aren't slipping in under the wire as they cross from Mexico. They're flying first-class into New York with Saudi passports and perfectly-valid Visas!
In the long run, however, all the enforcement in the world will only help for a little while when there are hundreds of people crossing the borders everyday.
Medved's question was why Liberals say we shouldn't try to kill the terrorists before they try and kill us.
The caller - an immigration sole-issue wacko - called up and tried to convince Medved that by removing all the troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and placing them along our borders, that would make us immune to terrorism
Medved asked the caller if his "solution" would have stopped 9/11 and - like this one issue wacko and so many before him - the caller realized the stupidity of his proposal and couldn't get around it & started arguing all kinds of things.
Medved held his ground asking him to answer the question.
Caller finally admitted it wouldn't
Medved then noted that - so typical of wackos on this issue and others over the years - they're incapable of discussing anything without involving their pet issues.
Compared to what ? Please provide a link. You have a study that shows it directly affects terrorist attacks as opposed to the very real deterents of taking out the leaders of Hammas ?
Terrorism is down since the wall has been going up, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I haven't heard Medved complain about building a wall to protect Israel - - - (maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard him protest Sharon's police-the-border's policy; I've only heard him waffle when callers advocated policing AMERICA's borders ---- have I missed his statements on either issue, or is my impression, of a double standard, correct?).
I think the Canadian border is the one we should be protecting. All the Muslims are in Canada.
I think fighting terrorists has nothing to do with talk radio and someone's opinion.
Do you lock your door?
As early as the story of the Trojan Horse, the folly of thinking walls and moats will protect us has been consistently demonstrated in history to be deadly nonsense.
But the claim that this is a "pet issue" not worth discussing rests on the assumption that borders issues are irrelevant to protection against terror. I disagree: protection against terror requires protecting our borders. Ask Sharon: That's why he's building a wall.
pleae provide proof and provide causal relationship.
Do we have to wait for the attack launched by someone who drove over from Canada, or snuck in from Mexico to get the point? You wouldn't let just anyone in your house, and you would expel a criminal from your place of business, so why operate differently with our nation? You might argue about how this rates in terms of the best use of limited resources, but that is about all. Poll after poll shows Americans want the borders closed, but very few politicians have the stomach for the politically correct dumping which they will get when they speak about it.
If I did, would it stop someone bent on killing me ? Would it even slow them down ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.