Posted on 12/16/2007 11:57:44 AM PST by traviskicks
“I could give two s**ts about the 1st cav. So they rode horses along the border before world war one, big deal. The purpose of having a fence or troops on the border is to force people to go through authorized entry points, but
most of these amendments would have made US soldiers subservient to Customs, and that the soldiers couldn’t really DO anything without a Border Patrol guy bossing them around. We shouldn’t have soldiers playing Customs officials, searching trucks and airplanes.”
Shows how little you know Private Pyle.
Because the 1st Cav wasn’t formed until AFTER WW1 you dumba**.
The rest of your moronic post isn’t even worth a detailed reply.
Doesn’t surprise me that the village idiot refuses to return the donation.
It just proves what the campaign is made of.
Hell as a military veteran, I was told that I was a traitor and should be shot by one of the village idiot’s own campaign workers.
I E-mailed the village idiot himself as well the head zoo keeper running the campaign giving detailed information as well as names and phone numbers to witnesses who saw the incident.
Well the POS campaign manager replied that the campaign wasn’t going to take any action against the worker.
Oh, and just the other day one of the resident paulbots on here made a disparaging comment about my military service
Read the laws. By my reading, at least half would have made soldiers answer to the whims of customs officials.
What I meant by that comment is that the history of the 1st Cav has little to do with our current situation along the mexican border. I really doubt we will have horse mounted patrols along the border today. Therefore, the history of the 1st Cav is irrelevant to our discussion.
Do you disagree with any of these points:
-No matter how many troops we have along the border, we will still have legal border crossings
-We should not force our soldiers, 1st Cav included, to answer to the Border Patrol
-Our soldiers are trained to fight wars, not to search trucks or airplanes as they enter the country.
Now, if we conclude these points are accurate, then the only purpose of stationing troops along the border is to force border crossers into controllable points of entry, where Customs officials can deal with them. That is the reasoning behind building a border fence, and should be how we approach stationing troops along the border. From my readings of the amendments, most did not do this. They simply tried to make the US military forces an extended arm of Immigration. I don’t think that is a good idea.
It’s unfortunate that Paul has been lumped in with white supremacists, but I can’t really fault him for not returning the money. Why should he care if David Duke or whomever sends him money? Unless you are making the case that Paul is changing his policy positions based upon the money David Duke or whomever has sent him, I don’t see what the problem is. What policy positions does he have that are racist? None.
“I really doubt we will have horse mounted patrols along the border today.”
The Border Patrol still uses horses in areas where other means of transportation is unusable.
“No matter how many troops we have along the border, we will still have legal border crossings”
No sh*t Sherlock.
The point of putting the military on the border is to eliminate the ILLEGAL border crossings. Legal crossings require valid documentation in order to enter the country.
“We should not force our soldiers, 1st Cav included, to answer to the Border Patrol”
The military wasn’t going to be answering to the Border Patrol.
The only interaction between the two would be coordinating patrol sectors, notification of illegal crossings, and hand off of those detained for processing.
Some troops MAY ride shotgun with the Border Patrol in areas known for violence due to the drug cartels to provide extra firepower.
Other than that, thats it.
“Our soldiers are trained to fight wars, not to search trucks or airplanes as they enter the country.”
Soldiers who are trained for war already search cars and trucks entering military installations but thats besides the fact that the troops wouldn’t be at the official crossing points conducting searches.
“the only purpose of stationing troops along the border is to force border crossers into controllable points of entry, where Customs officials can deal with them. That is the reasoning behind building a border fence,”
The fence can be bypassed either by cutting through it, climbing over it, tunneling under it, or in the case of the more mountainous area walk around it.
I believe the fence and troops should be used together to force people into legal crossing areas. Troops should not be used for law enforcement though. Leave the inspection of trucks or airplanes to customs.
Im not really arguing against the idea of troops along the border, just the idea that troops should become Immigration officials. In essence, these bills turned soldiers into customs officials.
And if I might add, you have been extremely unpleasant. It’s not necessary.
“And if I might add, you have been extremely unpleasant. It’s not necessary.”
And you plan on going in the Marines?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Sonny, if you think that I’m unpleasent then you are in for a real shock when you step off that bus at the repo depot.
“Troops should not be used for law enforcement though. Leave the inspection of trucks or airplanes to customs.”
For the tenth time THE MILITARY ISN’T GOING TO BE USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. That is why they would be in radio contact with the BP agents.
Do you understand or do I need to speak S L O W E R?
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.