Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-troops (Mexican) aiding drug traffickers
The Washington Times ^ | Feb 24, 2005 | Jerry Seper

Posted on 02/24/2005 12:42:44 PM PST by WindOracle

Former Mexican soldiers, police and federal agents, originally trained as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, are working as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers, bringing a new wave of drug-related killings into the United States, authorities said.

Law-enforcement and intelligence officials said the well-armed gang, known as the "Zetas," is linked to hundreds of killings and dozens of kidnappings on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly over a wide area of southeastern Texas from Laredo to Brownsville and in cities throughout Mexico.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aliens; border; borders; cocaine; drugs; emme; familiaherrera; froblsdontcare; illegal; illegalaliens; immigrants; marijuana; mexicanborder; mexico; narcotrafficantes; zatas
Good article, worth the read.
1 posted on 02/24/2005 12:42:52 PM PST by WindOracle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WindOracle
Another reason we need to seriously beef up security along the border.

I'm sure there is a limit to what we should do to secure the border, but I don't think an anti-personnel mine field 700 meters deep (on both side of the border) goes passed the limit.

2 posted on 02/24/2005 12:51:21 PM PST by joedelta (Those who long for peace must prepare for war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; HiJinx; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 4.1O dana super trac pak; ...
"Sources suggest it is only a matter of time before Mexican drug wars spill over onto U.S. streets"

"If true, it suggests the Mexican cartels' paramilitary forces already are operating within the United States,"

"Snipers working as lookouts for drug traffickers were targeting Border Patrol agents from vantage points across the U.S.-Mexico border. Agents assigned to the Douglas station in Arizona's southeastern corner were fired at on at least six occasions."

"27 U.S. citizens have been abducted along the border in the past six months, two of whom were killed."

NOW can we redeploy the National Guard to guard our nation? How much more of this are we supposed to take?

3 posted on 02/24/2005 1:04:04 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (Unrepentent politically-incorrect Nativist who believes America comes first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WindOracle

BTTT


4 posted on 02/24/2005 1:21:19 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus

Dang. I had the BP Tucson Sector Commander (Michael Nicely) available last night and didn't even think to bring up the question of how long he thinks it will be before one of his agents gets shot.

The bulk of the Town Hall meeting focused on the Minutemen, and he reiterated his opposition to what he sees as amateurs coming down here to 'help' the Border Patrol.

After the meeting, he said he loves getting out to talk with us and appreciates the help the locals are giving his agents. It just scares him to death to have a third unknown element introduced into the mix down here. We're all going to need to walk on eggshells for awhile...


5 posted on 02/24/2005 1:39:41 PM PST by HiJinx (www .ProudPatriots.org ~ Operation Easter/Passover ~ February 15 - March 4, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
It just scares him to death to have a third unknown element introduced into the mix down here

A bunch of well-meaning, mostly law abiding, maybe a little less than well trained Americans scares him more than heavily armed paramilitary units operating for major drug trafficking gangs?

Not trying to put words in your mouth here, but it seems odd that Nicely would view things that way on his own - which I don't doubt. He should have brought up the subject of the Zetas on his own without prompting. Somehow I really can't remember the last time foreign and hostile military groups operated on U.S. soil with impunity. You'd think that might be rather central to his thoughts lately.

6 posted on 02/24/2005 1:48:02 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WindOracle; HiJinx
This is definitely worth the read, WO. Thanks for posting it.

I left South Texas about three months ago. At that time I was hearing rumors. The rumors have now become fact.
This situation is deteriorating rapidly, and if we don't close off that border a lot of innocent people are going to be killed.

If we needed any more justification for a wall, this is it.
If we needed another excuse for our military to patrol our border with orders to shoot to kill, we've got it.

7 posted on 02/24/2005 2:08:28 PM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus

Some good points. It is time to close the damn border!


8 posted on 02/24/2005 2:29:33 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry all, I did a search and somehow I missed it, but I seem to have doubled up.

'Original thread

Once again, my apologies.

9 posted on 02/24/2005 2:41:10 PM PST by WindOracle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus

...when their's blood (yours and mine) running in the streets after we endure M.Law?


10 posted on 02/24/2005 2:54:29 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
err; there's
11 posted on 02/24/2005 2:58:38 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WindOracle
Good article.

Did anyone happen to catch Catherine Crier today? She was scheduled to discuss the border problem - just wondering what slant she took.

12 posted on 02/24/2005 3:15:34 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus

And the KongressKritters are still Willfully Derelict in the Performance of their Sworn Duties.


13 posted on 02/24/2005 4:26:10 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus; Poohbah
NOW can we redeploy the National Guard to guard our nation?

There are those on this forum that will insist that deploying the NG for such duty violates the Posse Comitatus Act, but they're either ignorant or lying. (If the former, hopefully they learned their lesson yesterday).

14 posted on 02/24/2005 6:00:00 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Border enforcement is currently defined as a LAW ENFORCEMENT mission, and a federalized National Guard is a MILITARY entity.

Congress would have to give explicit approval for the mission.

And, if you got your way...you would have succeeded in crippling thew ability of the US Army to project power overseas. There are many foreign countries and terrorist organizations who would be willing to pay a LOT of money to bring that about, good sir.


15 posted on 02/24/2005 6:04:16 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Congress would have to give explicit approval for the mission.

Damn right. They could, they should, and if the (vast majority of) the American people have a say in the matter, they eventually will.

And, if you got your way...you would have succeeded in crippling thew ability of the US Army to project power overseas.

BS, Poob. I'm not advocating we use Army troops, just NG. .....In addition to significantly beefing up the Border Patrol.

There are many foreign countries and terrorist organizations who would be willing to pay a LOT of money to bring that about

You don't think Islamist terrorist orgs are actively trying (and often succeeding) to penetrate our own borders? Think again.

In 2003, the Border Patrol arrested 39,215 so-called "OTMs," or other-than-Mexicans, along the Southwest border. In 2004, the number jumped to 65,814. (4th paragraph)

Those figures worry intelligence and Homeland Security officials, who say al-Qaeda leaders want to smuggle operatives and weapons of mass destruction across the nation's porous land borders. James Loy, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, told Congress last week, "Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons." (5th paragraph)

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, says the Border Patrol has "reliable intelligence that there are terrorists living in South America, assimilating the culture and learning the language" in order to blend in with Mexicans crossing the border. (6th paragraph)

16 posted on 02/24/2005 6:38:17 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy

I know you ae interested in South Texas so I'll pass some information to you. Yesterday, KURV radio station announced that the border patrol had apprehended a man from South America at the Falfurous check point. This man is wanted in SA for bombing a bus and killing 28 people. He is a gang member that has ties with Al Queda.

This man evidently used the back roads around the Falfuros check point and took a wrong turn. He was traveling south and realized his mistake. He then made a u-turn and was probably on the one way part of the highway going the wrong way. The BP spotted this. They decided to check him out.

I haven't seen this in the news yet but marine inspector is aware of this, so it is true.


17 posted on 02/24/2005 6:56:12 PM PST by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
Very interesting.

I've been through that Fal checkpoint a hundred times.
I really didn't know there was any backroads around it, and I've traveled a bunch of backroads around there.
I know they've tightened down a bunch at Falfurrias. Where it used to take me five minutes max to get through, the last time I went through took twenty minutes. I like that.

I'm glad they caught that POS. I've been hearing rumors for months that the gangs and the terrorists have joined forces.
The gangs supply the terrorists with drug money, and the terrorists supply the gangs with arms.

18 posted on 02/24/2005 7:32:28 PM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy; texastoo

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs24.6feb24,1,2957366.story?coll=la-headlines-world

IN BRIEF / HONDURAS


Suspect in Bus Massacre Is Captured in Texas
From Times Wire Reports

February 24, 2005



A man wanted by the Honduran government in connection with a bus massacre that killed 28 people has been arrested in Texas, the Homeland Security Department said in Washington.

Authorities described the man, Ever Anibal Rivera Paz, who also goes by the name Franklin Jairo Rivera-Hernandez, as the reputed leader of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang in Honduras.

Rivera Paz was arrested Feb. 10 by the Texas Highway Patrol about 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexican border. He is in federal custody.


19 posted on 02/24/2005 7:50:00 PM PST by LNewman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LNewman

Thanks for the link. However, our local radio station said that the BP arrested him as he was driving south and made a u-turn before the Falfurrias check point. He was already on the north side of the check point.

TC. Thanks for the spelling of Falfurrias as I just couldn't remember the spelling when I posted to you.

He is one of the more dangerous people we are letting in this country.


20 posted on 02/24/2005 8:05:01 PM PST by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
Now I'm confused.

The checkpoint at Fal is on the east side of the road to catch traffic coming from the south.
If he were traveling south there is no checkpoint on the west side of the road.

21 posted on 02/24/2005 8:13:08 PM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LNewman

I notice that the article didn't mention how he got across the border. He either had to float across the Rio Grande or use a Mexican visa or shopping card. My guess is that he had a Mexican visa or a fake American dirvers license.

He evidently had enough money to purchase a car.


22 posted on 02/24/2005 8:16:02 PM PST by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy

You are right that the check point is on the east side of the road. He made the u-turn on the west side of the highway. He was spotted by the BP making the turn and that is the reason they went after him. KURV was amazed at this too. There is only a little picnic park that separates the highway and you can see from one side to the other.


23 posted on 02/24/2005 8:34:45 PM PST by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: texastoo

Not only is this guy a murdering piece of garbage, but he's dumber that a mesquite stump.


24 posted on 02/24/2005 8:39:53 PM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: texastoo; TexasCowboy
I just posted it because TC said it hadn't been reported in the paper and I remembered reading about it today. I thought it interesting that it was reported he was picked up on Feb. 10 and reported 2 weeks later.

Another interesting report in today's OC Register is titled Nations gang up to stop gangs. Lead says: "El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and the U.S. seek ways to work on crime fight."

An AP article by Traci Carl datelined Apopa, El Salvador, has the FBI, Homeland Security and So. Cal. law enforcement there with gang members rounded up by Salvadoran police. About 50 officals from the nations were taking part in a 3-day conference that included talking to reformed gang members, visiting jails and interviewing those rounded up in the pre-dawn raid. The article also mentions the arrest of Rivera Paz.

25 posted on 02/24/2005 8:41:22 PM PST by LNewman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LNewman
"I just posted it because TC said it hadn't been reported in the paper"

I didn't say anything about it. I hadn't heard about it, but I'm not in South Texas now.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the gangs in El Salvador or Guatamala or Honduras as long as they don't cross that Rio Grande.

26 posted on 02/24/2005 8:45:44 PM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WindOracle
Impossible. The Mexican military is one of the finest, most disciplined organizations in the world today. Pres. Vincente would never allow something like this. Pres. Bush would never be associated with Pres. Vincente if this were occurring. It's completely unsubstantiated. The Mexicans are your friends... you're sleepy, you're eyes are heavy and you're feeling sleepy... the GOP has it under control, you're feeling very sleepy now....
27 posted on 02/24/2005 8:49:04 PM PST by daguberment (The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
I don't care about the gangs in El Salvador or Guatamala or Honduras as long as they don't cross that Rio Grande.

Right. That would appear to be the reason for the meeting in El Salvador with U.S. LEOs present. The photo with the print article is apparently depicting one of those caught in the pre-dawn raid. Dressed only in boxers with a large tattoo across his chest, the caption reads: "CRACKDOWN: A man charged with homicide and deported by the U.S. crouches as he is arrested Wednesday in Apopa, El Salvador."

28 posted on 02/24/2005 8:55:15 PM PST by LNewman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy

My mistake. Texastoo said he hadn't seen it in the news yet.


29 posted on 02/24/2005 8:58:25 PM PST by LNewman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
BS, Poob. I'm not advocating we use Army troops, just NG.

I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept. The Army relies on National Guard formations to perform its mission. Chain the National Guard to the US border, you might as well stick the rest of the US Army there, too, because you've just pulled most of their support.

As I noted, there are a lot of folks out there that want us to just fold up our tents, retreat inside our border, and leave them free to engage in all manner of acts contrary to US interests. And you're advocating their line.

Interesting.

Those figures worry intelligence and Homeland Security officials, who say al-Qaeda leaders want to smuggle operatives and weapons of mass destruction across the nation's porous land borders.

Congratulations: you have just stated that the border security mission must be performed with 100% effectiveness. Even one person getting into the United States illegally, by any route, just became unacceptable, because, according to your line of argument, one "leaker" can mean a city being destroyed. Please explain, in detail, how your proposal achieves that goal. If I can figure out a way to illegally enter the United States with a WMD with your proposal in place, you lose. You game?

30 posted on 02/25/2005 8:50:20 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Please explain, in detail, how your proposal achieves that goal [of a border apprehension rate of 100%]

It doesn't, of course. Never said it did. But it would undoubtedly increase the percentage (of apprehensions) considerably. Your contention that because it's impossible to achieve an apprehension rate of 100% that we shouldn't even try is incomprehensible. ....and dangerous.

I could just as easily ask you to please explain how the NG giving support to the U.S. Army in Iraq achieves a 100% effectiveness rate (of keeping terrorists out). Again, it doesn't. .....although it certainly helps.

Frankly, I consider the defense of our homeland against Islamists to be more important than the defense of Iraq. .....and I suspect the vast majority of Americans do as well.

I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept.

Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist? This war is being fought on many fronts, not just in Iraq. And again, the defense of the homeland is quite an important element, wouldn't you say?

31 posted on 02/25/2005 9:23:21 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
It doesn't, of course. Never said it did.

In other words, you want to spend an infinitely large amount of money on a project that you know will be a complete failure by the declaratory mission rationale and performance criterion you've established. Just wanted to get that on record.

Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist?

Because of the practical effects of what you advocate.

You demand that we cripple the US Army's ability to fight and win wars to perform a mission that you admit cannot be accomplished, at least with respect to the reason you're claiming for the mission. The real mission you have in mind (lowering the number of illegal aliens entering this country for economic reasons) is not, IMNHO, sufficiently pressing as to demand that we cripple the US Army to do it.

Here's the problem: when do those troops come off the border? Answer: never. There are a lot of foreign powers that would love us to chain down our military on a never-ending mission like that.

Suppose Iran goes on a tear in the Persian Gulf, Korea heats up, or China gets rowdy under your scenario. The price of bringing the US Army to the battle would be a renewal of massive illegal immigration. People like you would reliably demand that the Army stay home.

You are serving the interests of Teheran, Pyongyang, and Beijing, good sir. I find that . . . interesting.

32 posted on 02/25/2005 9:33:02 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
In other words, you want to spend an infinitely large amount of money on a project that you know will be a complete failure by the declaratory mission rationale and performance criterion you've established. Just wanted to get that on record.

Complete failure? lol......just because we can't achieve a 100% apprehension you consider it a "complete failure?" Logic isn't your strong suit, apparently.

The real mission you have in mind (lowering the number of illegal aliens entering this country for economic reasons)

Try to restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth, boy. My primary concern is homeland security, and for you to assert otherwise is presumptuous in the extreme.

People like you would reliably demand that the Army stay home.

How many times do I have to tell you that I advocate National Guard deployments on the U.S. border, not the U.S. Army. 10? 20? You're either insane or a complete moron. And since I don't suffer such types, please refrain from posting to me in the future.

33 posted on 02/25/2005 9:46:57 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo; All

Don't miss the FR poll!!!

Which of the following is the best way to solve the illegal immigration problem?
Seal and militarize the borders
47.9%

Beef up and enforce existing law
37.1%

Some form of guest worker program
9.9%

Other
3.1%

Undecided/Pass

1.9%


34 posted on 02/25/2005 9:52:18 AM PST by JustAnotherSavage ("We are all sinners. But jerks revel in their sins." PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JustAnotherSavage
Participated yesterday.

And it appears my view is shared by 47.9% of FR.

35 posted on 02/25/2005 9:55:17 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Complete failure? lol......just because we can't achieve a 100% apprehension you consider it a "complete failure?"

For your stated mission of stopping WMD-carrying terrorists, less than 100% apprehension gets counted in numbers of cities vaporized.

If less than 100% apprehension is acceptable to you . . . how many vaporized cities are you willing to accept?

Try to restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth, boy. My primary concern is homeland security, and for you to assert otherwise is presumptuous in the extreme.

I pointed out the performance criterion for the "homeland security" mission in an era of manportable nukes. If that mission is, by your own mission, utterly unachievable, then what is the real mission?

How many times do I have to tell you that I advocate National Guard deployments on the U.S. border, not the U.S. Army. 10? 20?

The problem is that the US Army relies on the National Guard to be deployable. Put them on the border, and the US Army can't go anywhere else. Put them on the border, and the US Army is forced to stay home. Deploy the Army, and those National Guard units have to come off the border. And the prospect of massive illegal immigration would serve as a powerful deterrent to deploying the Army.

You're either insane or a complete moron.

And out comes the personal attack.

Neither assumption is correct, BTW; I merely am pointing out the consequences of the policies you advocate.

And since I don't suffer such types, please refrain from posting to me in the future.

I see that this is a new trend across multiple posters--demand that the other person shut up so that you can have the debate to yourself.

36 posted on 02/25/2005 10:19:35 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If less than 100% apprehension is acceptable to you . . . how many vaporized cities are you willing to accept?

Are you incapable of understanding that a very high apprehension rate would be a significantly more desirable than a very low one? The nuke-carrying border crossers in question could very well be appreneded by the NG troops (or extra Border Patrolmen) I advocate deploying. The fewer troops we have deployed, the greater the chances of a terrorist getting through. Odds, Poob, odds. Geez, it's as if I'm talking to a 5 year old kid.

The problem is that the US Army relies on the National Guard to be deployable. Put them on the border, and the US Army can't go anywhere else.

You're so full of sh/t it's coming out of your ears.

37 posted on 02/25/2005 10:31:20 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
You're so full of sh/t it's coming out of your ears.

Sorry, that is how the Army works.

38 posted on 02/25/2005 11:12:42 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry, you ARE full of sh/t to the nth degree.

Btw, do you finally understand the concept of odds, or do you need further instruction?

39 posted on 02/25/2005 11:14:51 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Sorry, you ARE full of sh/t to the nth degree.

Repeating the same profanity does not make you correct.

The Army relies on the National Guard. You wish to tie the National Guard to the border for all time. That means the rest of the Army might as well stay in garrison, because they will be unable to fight and win wars.

Btw, do you finally understand the concept of odds, or do you need further instruction?

I fully understand the concept of "odds." You merely maintain the already high odds of al-Qaeda using another attack vector--specifically, one of the ones you would leave uncovered, such as over-the-beach or the Canadian border, which are both woefully uncovered today relative to the Mexican border--and cripple the Army's ability to deploy and fight overseas in the process.

Your stated mission of "homeland security" is a shield for the real mission of shutting down illegal immigration from Mexico. The mission of shutting down illegal immigration is not so vital to the safety of the Republic that it requires crippling the United States Army.

40 posted on 02/25/2005 11:27:45 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The Army relies on the National Guard.

The Army is indeed being helped by the NG in Iraq at this time, but it doesn't rely on it to be deployable. And your assertion that if we deploy NG troops on the border the army "can't go anywhere else" is laughably ignorant.

You merely maintain the already high odds of al-Qaeda using another attack vector--specifically, one of the ones you would leave uncovered, such as over-the-beach or the Canadian border

You assume I was referring to deploying both NG troops and extra BP only on our Southern border -- and you're wrong, as is your wont.

Your stated mission of "homeland security" is a shield for the real mission of shutting down illegal immigration from Mexico.

Does continuing to make false assumptions - making a complete and public ass out of yourself in the process - get you off or something? You are one sick dude, Poob.

41 posted on 02/25/2005 11:42:56 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
The Army is indeed being helped by the NG in Iraq at this time, but it doesn't rely on it to be deployable.

Actually, it does. It was a deliberate policy decision made in the wake of the Vietnam War, to ensure that the next big war would involve a National Guard callup--and thus keep politicians from shoving the Army into wars without public involvement, and them blaming the Army when said wars went sour.

And your assertion that if we deploy NG troops on the border the army "can't go anywhere else" is laughably ignorant.

The National Guard provides a majority of the combat service support functions of the Army. No combat service support, no deployability.

You assume I was referring to deploying both NG troops and extra BP only on our Southern border -- and you're wrong, as is your wont.

In other words, you'd take the very limited manpower plus-up you'd get, and then disperse it so far and wide that no one would even notice they were there--including the illegal aliens and WMD-carrying terrorists.

Does continuing to make false assumptions - making a complete and public ass out of yourself in the process - get you off or something? You are one sick dude, Poob.

Your declared mission, as you defined it, based on the threat you cited, is utterly unachievable. That means that either (a) you are a complete fool (a possibility that is open to debate, but one that I won't assume to be the case), or (b) you have another mission in mind.

You're either stupid, or you're dissembling. Let me know which label you prefer.

42 posted on 02/25/2005 11:51:59 AM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Your declared mission, as you defined it, based on the threat you cited, is utterly unachievable.

Yeah, I figured the concept of "odds" hadn't penetrated that thick skull of yours. ......either that or you have an agenda to destroy America. So you're either a cretin or a traitor. Which is it, boy?

43 posted on 02/25/2005 11:59:32 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry, that is how the Army works.

Have to disagree, Mr. Poobah. Since British soldiers conveniently lined up wearing bright red coats our military has and continues to modify itself to conform to the requirements of an ever-fluid reality. They are nearly unrecognizable from the forces that carried off the Gulf War over a decade ago, just as the hidebound tactics of Vietnam were anethema to those in Schwarzkopf's era. Accomplishing what they did after Clinton spent eight years gutting their resources proved that our military can overcome almost anything.

The National Guard and Reserves are not being utilized as intended, anyway. They are shoring up a personnel shortage that would not be occurring if our all-volunteer military was paid and treated as it deserves. On that front the liberal Democrat establishment can count it's "victory" one body-bag at a time, as I consider every casualty due to another soldier not being there to cover a back.

44 posted on 02/25/2005 12:14:27 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (Unrepentent politically-incorrect Nativist who believes America comes first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus
The National Guard and Reserves are not being utilized as intended, anyway. They are shoring up a personnel shortage that would not be occurring if our all-volunteer military was paid and treated as it deserves.

We are at the upper limit on how many bodies we can legally put in uniform right now. The total authorized end strength is the limit here.

45 posted on 02/25/2005 12:22:15 PM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
So you're either a cretin or a traitor. Which is it, boy?

Given that you are, out of stupidity or another motive, pushing an agenda for our military in line with the desires of Beijing, Pyongyang, and Teheran, I would be very careful lobbing that allegation around.

46 posted on 02/25/2005 12:24:27 PM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
.....pushing an agenda for our military in line with the desires of Beijing, Pyongyang, and Teheran

Tell that to the 48% of the Freepers who voted to "militarize the borders" in the latest FR poll.

Our enemies would like nothing more than see mushroom clouds on American soil, and beefing up the BP in combination with deploying the NG significantly decreases the chances of such an act of terrorism happening.

I'll repeat my assertion: YOU are a traitor.

47 posted on 02/25/2005 12:30:26 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Tell that to the 48% of the Freepers who voted to "militarize the borders" in the latest FR poll.

Remember that, by definition, half of the people out there are "below average" intelligence.

Our enemies would like nothing more than see mushroom clouds on American soil, and beefing up the BP in combination with deploying the NG significantly decreases the chances of such an act of terrorism happening.

After you spread your limited increase in manpower to cover all 19,000 miles of US frontier, you are likely to end up increasing the likelihood of someone getting through with WMD. And it completely forecloses the offensive option--in other words, it foregoes the option of winning over the long term, and instead places us on a road to defeat.

I'll repeat my assertion: YOU are a traitor.

That's exactly what a loyal mouthpiece of Beijing, Pyongyang, and Teheran would say about me. To them, I am a traitor to their vision of the world.

48 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:38 PM PST by Poohbah ("Hee Haw" was supposed to be a television show, not a political movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
After you spread your limited increase in manpower to cover all 19,000 miles of US frontier, you are likely to end up increasing the likelihood of someone getting through with WMD

Only in the feeble mind of either a traitor or someone who's delusional beyond repair. And the increase in manpower I advocate would be significant. ....especially with the BP.

And it completely forecloses the offensive option

You keep repeating this inanity, but it bears no relation to reality whatsoever.

49 posted on 02/25/2005 12:46:08 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Mr. Mojo
"Your declared mission, as you defined it, based on the threat you cited, is utterly unachievable. That means that either (a) you are a complete fool (a possibility that is open to debate, but one that I won't assume to be the case), or (b) you have another mission in mind.

You're either stupid, or you're dissembling. Let me know which label you prefer."

Hey Poob, you're the one advocating a French military course of action -- retreating then surrendering without a shot being fired.

Who's "stupid" here?

50 posted on 02/25/2005 5:31:27 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson