BUILD THE BORDER WALL OR SAY GOODBYE TO AMERICA

Canada Free Press ^ | 12/02/18 | Jeff Crouere

[Sean_Anthony]

If the President has to shut down the government to get the necessary funding, he should do it without hesitation

We have heard the chants for three years, “Build the Wall!” It was the number one reason why Americans elected Donald Trump as President in 2016. Unfortunately, it is the most glaring unfulfilled promise of the Trump presidency.

Although the President wants a border wall, he needs Congress to fund the construction. Until now, Congress has only provided an anemic $1.6 billion for the border wall. This pathetic amount is nowhere near the $25 billion that is actually needed to properly build a wall that will stop the influx of illegal aliens.

[Chainmail]

So, does conservatism equate with “stick your head in the sand” isolationism?

You ever been anywhere?

[9YearLurker]

Have I ever been anywhere? Yes, I’ve lived, studied, and worked extensively abroad. What kind of question is that?

And there is as big difference between our current posture and some sort of “stick your head in the sand” strawman you seem intent on pushing.

Trump weighed in on this just today:

Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!

[Chainmail]

Forgive me for being suspicious because of your "It is not to protect global corporations abroad "Leftist sounding phrase. Sounds like the same line the pro-Hanoi "antiwar" movement used to deceive the American public.

If you have, in fact, spent time overseas, then you would recognize the necessity of a strong set of capabilities to deter war and if necessary, fight.

You have to ask yourself - which costs more; an overwhelming set of capabilities that never have to be used because it scares our potential adversaries or save the money and wait for the aggression to begin?

So let me rephrase my earlier question: have you ever served in uniform?

[Chainmail]

I like you - but you can't be serious: when the stuff really hits the fan and the only tool that will work in your kitbag is the armored power of the US Army, you'd have to re-think your response.

Seriously? Where would we have been with the army at Normandy and the drive through France and into Nazi Germany. How could we possibly defeat North Korea or the Russians or China or Iran if we had to without the army?

Navy's wonderful but they can't get very far inland.

[central_va]

Listen to me. I have thought this out. The Army has two real missions, secure our frontiers and to fight wars. It has third mission which is to harass the general population in a martial law capacity - that is the danger. Well, the "wars" we fight are globalist adventures and the Army will not deign to defend our borders.

A strong navy is must. If you want a forward deplorable infantry then the marines are there.

The standing Army is useless and dangerous and can be turned inward. Standing Armies basically suck.

[Chainmail]

Listen to me. You're full of crackers: we will always need a well-equipped and competent army to defend this country. Any other idea is just silliness.

Get some sleep.

[central_va]

In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

Read more at American Resistance to a Standing Army

[Chainmail]

Luckily for James Madison, the world hadn't made everyone - including some horrific barbarians - capable of killing Americans en masseyet. It is, however, our current reality.

It was a "large standing army" that gave America its freedom from England (not the nearly worthless but fast-running militias).

Is all of this because you didn't want to serve in the army? It can't be because of "principles" - since I'm sure that you're happy not to have to be speaking compulsory Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or German.

[central_va]

It was a "large standing army" that gave America its freedom from England (not the nearly worthless but fast-running militias).

Large standing armies refers to peacetime. LOL

[Chainmail]

So - we're supposed to wait around until we're attacked before we build up a credible army?

You never did serve in uniform, didya?

And no, the National Guard wouldn't last ten minutes in a real war all by itself and you know it.

[central_va]

No, the Navy and the Marines can handle it.

[Chainmail]

No. And that's me with 27 years in the Marines saying it. 180,000 men with only a few tanks would not be able to handle the Russian or the Chinese PLA all by our lonesome.

The navy transports folks and stuff and fights other navies. The Marines are the thin edge of the axe to break the door down, the US army is the mass of steel in that axe to finish the job.

You ever done any reading about the battle for Europe or to fight off the NKs and Chinese in Korea?

[central_va]

Marines saying it. 180,000 men with only a few tanks would not be able to handle the Russian or the Chinese PLA all by our lonesome.

Give the Army budget to the Navy and the Marines. Give the BP the manpower and personel they need from the Army budget. Increase ICE 20 fold.

[Chainmail]

Sheesh, C.V., what have you got against the army? They've always come through when we needed them.

While I do respect the time you spent in the navy, how does that qualify you for preparing for ground combat?

[central_va]

The job is not getting done. I would trade the Army for a 1,000 ship Navy, a 300,000 man BP, a 500,000 man ICE and a 500,000 man Marine corp.

[Chainmail]

Entertaining mix but I’m sure you know that that the BP, INS and the Corps would have a hard time against 20,000 Russian tanks.

[central_va]

We don’t need to worry about Russian tanks coming here, we only need to worry about them if we continue to be the world’s police force. I am “picking” on the Army because border security really should be their job - a primary mission. It’s not getting done. Give the money to the BP then.

[Chainmail]

You certainly should know by now that fighting them THERE is far better than fighting them HERE.

[AFret.]

Sorry, the America I was born and raised in already long gone.
The Constitution is ignored by our so called Leaders (sans one) and our sovereign Vote is erased by hoards of Illegal Invaders. All this is supported by over half the Citizens.

---

The Democrats will make “Amnesty For All” their primary campaign slogan in the next general.

They will win, the borders will disappear, and we will go over the edge into the abyss.

Thank God I don’t have any grandchildren...

[central_va]

You certainly should know by now that fighting them THERE is far better than fighting them HERE.

Which is the mission of the Navy and the Marines.