Hagel on Bush Immigration Plan: ‘That’s Not The Role of Our National Guard’
Hagel on Bush Immigration Plan: ‘That’s Not The Role of Our National Guard’
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) sharply criticized President Bush’s proposal, expected to be announced Monday, of sending thousands of National Guard troops to police the southern U.S. border. Hagel said flatly, “that’s not the role of our national guard.†He added that “we’ve got National Guard members in their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq†and “stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen in modern times.â€
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) has also spoken out against the plan.
Full transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: [Gov. Schwarzenegger is] against sending the National Guard. Where do you stand?
HAGEL: Well, I want to listen to the details and I want to listen to the President. But I would say this: I think we have to be very careful here. That’s not the role of our military. That’s not the role of our national guard. Let’s approach this in a long-term way where we fix the problem. That’s a short-term fix and I’m not sure it’s a very wise fix. Let’s start with the fact of whether we even have the capacity. What the Governor’s talking about. We’ve got 75% of all the equipment of National Guard all across this country is in Iraq. We’ve got National Guard members in their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq. We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times. What in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send down to protect our borders. That’s not their role. I’ll listen to the President but I have a lot of questions about this. I’m skeptical.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
75 Responses to “Hagel on Bush Immigration Plan: ‘That’s Not The Role of Our National Guard’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Since our military is stretched so thin, maybe we can get some illegal's to protect the boarder for us? They work for almost nothing and as we have seen in recent protests, there are a LOT of them around.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:33 amIt's not the job of a group called 'The National Guard' to guard the national borders, but it is their job to fight in heavy combat on non-national soil?
The spin is making me sick. Can I get off now?
May 14th, 2006 at 9:44 amthere are a LOT of them around.
Comment by Colorado Jyms — May 14, 2006 @ 9:33 am
AND, border security doesn't seem to be a job Americans are wiling to do (specifically those on Capital Hill).
May 14th, 2006 at 9:46 am#2 unbelievable
May 14th, 2006 at 9:57 amThat was my first thought as well.
#2 Unbelieveable, I guess the question to ask then is; What Nation does our National Guard guard?
May 14th, 2006 at 9:59 am"The spin is making me sick. Can I get off now?"
Sure, just move to Canada.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:00 amSending mentally ill troops into combat:
link
May 14th, 2006 at 10:04 amHere is the President's quote from his debate with Al Gore on Oct. 11th 2000.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building...I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation building corps from America? Absolutely not."
Boston.com 3/2/2004
May 14th, 2006 at 10:05 amI tried that, but the Canadian National Guard wouldn't let me in.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:06 amHere is a great article on the Guard's role in HOMELAND security.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:18 amhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/BG1532.cfm
The migration of people from Mexico to the United States is driven by economics. How many National Guards will it take to stop people who are desperate from entering this county? Maybe a half a million. Maybe it is time to bring our guys home from Iraq.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:24 amThe borders, or boarders, which ever you prefer, are leaky sieves.
Bush and Cheney are in their bunkers today. It's business as usual. Everything will seem normal up to and even past the time that the Capitol is sacked and burned.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:25 amHe's "not sure it's a very wise fix."? Then SHUT THE F*CK UP!! That 'brainfart' of GWB's should be declared dead, even before arrival. The National Guard has already been abused beyond belief by GWB. They are not toys, they are human beings. Just because they are scrambling about, looking for fresh diversions, hoping to stem the tide of reality that is coming their way, is no excuse for further abusing the N.G. The truth is, they don't give a good godd*mn about 'securing the borders'. If they did, it wouldn't have taken 5 &1/2 years to just come up with the idea. They are really starting to wear out my last nerve. Just tell him NO! And not just 'no', but HELL NO!! Any action by BushCo. would be a waste, in every possible way. So, don't EVEN go there!
May 14th, 2006 at 10:48 amWhat will happen if National Guard troops fire on Mexicans?
May 14th, 2006 at 11:16 amThe issue not being addressed is the fact that 75% of the National Guard is in Iraq. Granted I have held a grudge against the National Guard ever since May 4, 1970. Their lack of professional behavior in the face of rock throwers is still a disgrace in my opinion. But they'll have to live with it. But the National Guard belongs here in each state that they are accountable to. They should not be under the control of the Pentagon unless there is a major assault of our borders. Low level poor workers running into the US looking for work is not an assault on our borders. If the people of the US want to stop such acts then their representatives should vote the money to develop better civilian controlled border security. The immigration services, customs and the border patrol are not military organizations. They are more like police than the army. I wonder with the breaching of the 4th ammendment, how long will it be before soldiers are being quartered in our homes? This whole immigrant hysteria is being whipped up by the right wing as many of their other hysterical attacks are beginning to fail.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:17 amDoes no one recognize this as the foot in the door, overturning posse comitatus? How long is it before regular armed forces units are patrolling the border, with shoot to kill orders? How long before churches and synagogues and other groups that help immigrants, legal and illegal, are forced to close up shop? This is another piece in the fascist pie, and people are buying it!
May 14th, 2006 at 11:19 amDidn't Mexico just strike a huge oil find?
May 14th, 2006 at 11:36 amI think they should go around to the Texas Colleges and draft these young republicans whom want to go to war.
Let them have a Taste of Death and Blood,
Maybe then they will stop the War Monger Rhetoric.
What say you College Republicans? How many of YOU have signed up for this Bush Fiasco? How many?
Why are you hear talking to me about It?
Go Fight, My family, has served from WW1 to Vitenam.
And to think that we as leftists are tired of War. Yes we are.
Its time to put down that Book Kiddies.
Time to Go lose a Limb or an Eye for those worda you speak?
We SHOULD see a huge rise in Republicans Joining the Forces. YET WE DON"T..
ODD. Why are NOT you Bushies signing up for this War?
Indeed. Your Words are Hollow.
Bush Hitler Youth go go go. I am to Old and we have done our duty, ITS YOUR TURN!!
May 14th, 2006 at 11:47 amYou know damn well that KBR will get the sub-contract to supplement the Guard. It's easier to hire mercenaries for border patrol than for combat in Iraq. It would be easier if they dumped all our radioactive waste into the Rio Grande. That way all the illegals whould glow in the dark and be easy to locate.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:51 am#16 that is a frightening potential.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe guard is supposed to be under the command of the governor. Bush has already usurped that by sending them to Iraq. When they use their phone data collection results against war protestors and other dissidents, will the n.g. be called out?
Will we return to the 50's and the civil rights/segregation mayhem? I remember all too clearly the Kent State events in the early 70's.
What doors are being unlocked in the name of security? Is Bush is using the immigration crisis awareness to promote a hidden agenda?
The GOP, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), is already building a WALL across the southern border. Now troops.
Anybody ever stop to think that the wall and the troops can just as easily be used to keep people in the US as to keep people out?
May 14th, 2006 at 12:25 pmAnybody ever stop to think that the wall and the troops can just as easily be used to keep people in the US as to keep people out?
Comment by The Mad Texan — May 14, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
For over a year now. I just get called names.
As long as The Fear is greater than The Pain, nothing will happen. We should hope that gas prices on November 7th are painful. Pain leads to change.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:51 pmLet's see. . . Political / Economic problem = Military Response. Makes sense.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:56 pm[...] Like Senator Chuck Hagel, of whom atrios writes: As Hagel, who is the conservative that everyone pretends McCain is (note I said “conservative” and not “some guy liberals should love because he’s secretly liberal”), says, the whole Guard-on-the-border-plan is stupid. [...]
May 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe spin is making me sick. Can I get off now?
Comment by unbelievable — May 14, 2006 @ 9:44 am
----
No. Not until you puke on a Republican politician.
May 14th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#2, Unbelievable,
The job of the National Guard is to protect our borders, from an armed invasion.
And, since, according to our Commander in Chief, Iraq posed an immediate threat of an armed invasion to the United States of America using weapons of mass destruction, the National Guard was righteously mobilized and utilized to protect this nation's borders.
The idea of pressing the National Guard into service as Border Patrol agents demonstrates that the immigration issue was not about illegal immigrants per se. The majority of illegal aliens on U.S. soil are college students and professionals who have overstayed their visa. This is a racist move, designed to focus the issue on one ethnic group whose members migrate here solely for economic reasons.
May 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pmWhat a stupid, stupid idea it is to use our National Guard to "protect" our southern border from Mexicans looking for a better life. When will the government induced fear and paranoia end? Wake up America.
May 14th, 2006 at 4:44 pmThe Mexican border must be militarized to prevent drug smuggling and terrorists from crossing into the United States! The National Guard are weekend/part-time soldiers and are NOT trained to defend borders, but the regular Army troops should patrol the borders! If the military is stretched thin, due to Iraq, then all the more reason to pull them out of that region, and put them on the borders instead!
May 14th, 2006 at 5:06 pmIf the NG is to be used in any such capacity, it should be at the request of the governor of a state, not the ignorant president of the US, as incompetent as he is.
This is nothing more that election year politicking, and it will go nowhere. Bush will promise to beef up the security at the border with Mexico, but like most of his promises, it will not be carried through on, and will come to naught.
Remember, an election is coming up and he has to get the gay marriage bill passed after it is introduced by his hemorroid, Bill Frist. You know, the consulting TV doctor.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:11 pmI've actually heard people say that the reason Bush's approval rating is so low, is because they've polled illegal immigrants.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:15 pmThis is a very scary move. As is mentioned above, I thoroughly believe that this is the next step in the suspension of Posse Comitatus and the institution of martial law (I think their dipping their toes in to see how much we'll put up with). The reality is that if they wanted to solve the illegal immigration problem in this country, a good step in the right direction would be to actually enforce the laws on the books rather than sending in troops (that's all these buffoons know how to do though - attack, attack, attack). We need to start prosecuting the "Coyotes" who transport these illegals and, more importantly, the business owners (particularly the mega-agriculture companies) that employ illegals without any concern for their human rights (which I'm sure the trolls will bash me for - God forbid we advocate for the human rights of brown people). The pedestal on which lady liberty sits reads "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free". Apparently, in a "post-9/11 world" this doesn't apply anymore. Face it people, if your name is not Whitecloud or RunningBear, we are ALL immigrants in this country. It's what our nation was founded upon. That's not to say that we don't have a problem with illegal immigration in this country because we do. I would submit to all here though that troops are NOT the answer. How about actually engaging Mexico in a discussion about ways that we can solve this issue together? Oh yeah, I forgot, that would take diplomacy and our government doesn't do diplomacy. This is yet another instance where they attempt to use the military to handle a law enforcement matter (Using a bazooka to kill a mosquito anyone?) and I, for one, am not buying it!
It's time for these warmongering criminals to be resigned to the dustbin of history so we can reclaim our national identity! ITMFA!
May 14th, 2006 at 7:10 pmtheir should read "They're" above...my apologies to any members of the grammar police present
May 14th, 2006 at 7:12 pmThe Indian Removal Act of 1830 worked ok. Native Americans were forced to leave the southeast US over to Oklahoma, The Trail of Tears.
The Illegal Alien Removal Act of 2006 could work too.
Illegal aliens aren't paying taxes. The US gov wants to give illegal aliens legal status so they pay taxes. Illegal aliens give money, and lots of it, to legal aliens that are relatives. The relatives then buy houses and property. It works. It pays better to work illegally. It's a no-brainer.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- A. Einstein
May 14th, 2006 at 7:25 pmPost 31 green > Dubya Dunce Decider goes to Mexico all the time, and the President of Mexico tells him to keep the border wide open so the elite of his nation can get rid of the poor population! Mexican elite wants 1/4 of its citizens to leave, because they have no intention to employ them, and they do not want them to stage another revolution to overthrow them, like they have done in the past! At the same time the corporate elite in America want to use them as cheap labor, and to drag down the wages for American workers too! Pres. Bush if he was really concerned about terrorism, would have militarized the border just after 9/11/01 > instead he has allowed over 7 million illegals to enter the US during his presidency! Ronald Reagan started the influx in 1980 > about 5 million entered between that date and 2000 > after 2000 about 7 million more! So around 200,000 a year up to 2000 and then up to 2006 about 1,200,000 a year! Experts are warning that if the border remains unchecked the influx could increase to 2 million a year! Our economy is on the brink of collapse, so another 4 million in 2 years cannot be obsorbed! Americans must demand that the Mexican government find employment for its citizens and not force them to be used as slaves in the United States! Americans must also demand that corporations that profit off the backs of illegal immigrants be penalized and the CEOs put into prison! The Bush Regime must be removed from power > PERIOD>
May 14th, 2006 at 9:01 pmBush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force
Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.
Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.
But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:46 pmU.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
QUESTION: Let me ask you one last question on the Minutemen on the Mexican border. What is your position on these civilians trying to patrol the border and keep migrants from coming in?
RUMSFELD: The Department of Defense of the United States has no role with respect to borders, and it's not something that we're involved with, and the President of the United States has commented on it. It’s not within the jurisdiction of --
May 14th, 2006 at 9:54 pmCall out the brown-shirts. The reichstag is burning.
Start the draft now and with no deferments!!!
May 14th, 2006 at 10:32 pmRestore quotas that allow the number of immigrants, by country/region, whatever, to be fair, that the economy can absorb (corporations advise the U.S. Government), and restore the heavy fines that were levied on employers when they hired undocumented workers. It used to work that way, under the Democrats. And it worked fine to preserve the standards of living of this country.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:10 pmGnede, please do us all a favor and turn off your caps lock. ty
May 15th, 2006 at 2:08 amThis has been one of the best threads I have read. There are so many intelligent ideas and reactions to this issue. Thank you all for bringing them to light. My main point in all of this is accountabilty. The constant robbing Peter to pay Paul mentality from this Administration slays me. If the war in Iraq had been properly planned for then we even be having this argument. If the Border patrol was prpoerly administrated and financed we would have another element of this argument heading toward repair. I resent how the administration , out of fear of scrutinity, blows smoke up everyone's ass while running off to save a cat in a tree, when they should have not let the cat out of the house in the first place. Has anyone ever answered the question why Katrina was not declared a catastrophy?Have a great week and thanks again for your ideas and the time to deliver them.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:42 amWhere does the idea that our military is stretched thin come from? Our military is trained and equipped to protect our country. I would argue that they aren't "stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen in modern times," but rather that they are being used effectively in light of the most dangerous world we've seen in modern times.
Protecting our border with Mexico is an essential part of the war on terror and our troops including the National Guard should be considered in helping do so.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:49 amGnede, please do us all a favor and turn off your caps lock. ty
Comment by Lily — May 15, 2006 @ 2:08 am
And her computer...
May 15th, 2006 at 8:01 amWhere does the idea that our military is stretched thin come from?
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 7:49 am
Idea? Not an idea.
The military has lowered standards to accept more people (hence they can't find enough eligible ones).
They are pulling retired service personnel back into the war (hence they don't have enough people in active service).
They are not allowing people in active service to leave the military (hence they are stretching thin the people currently on service).
Clear now?
May 15th, 2006 at 8:05 am"This is not about militarizing the border," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400773.html
Since when is doing what the American people want any motivation for the King?
If he doesn't pay attention to polls, then why is he acting like he's paying attention now?
May 15th, 2006 at 8:18 amWe are at WAR!
It's called using the military and all it's resources and policies to fight the war. That's why we have a reserve and national guard. The military is not a civilian business and soldiers, sailors, and marines are not business people who have the same rights as ordinary workers. It's the military, and when they volunteered, they signed a contract that basically made them "property" of the U.S. government. I was once property myself. That's the way it is and they know it. They have a job to do and they're doing it.
I love when people who would never think of serving their country pretend to care about the people who are patriotic enough to do so.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:21 amWe are at WAR!
Only Congress can declare war. They have not. Therefore, we are not.
I love when people who would never think of serving their country pretend to care about the people who are patriotic enough to do so.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 8:21 am
I serve my country everyday by educating students (high school science teacher). It qualifies as just as much of a service to my country as you pointing a bomb or a bullet at someone you've never met who poses no real threat.
Knowledge is power. I suggest you get some.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:33 amCongress has authorized the use of force in both Afghanistan and Iraq - call it what you want, but we are at "war". The military makes decisions regarding staffing based upon those operations and members of the military are bound to abide by those decisions, not because they have been forced to, but because they have voluntarily given up some of their rights.
I'm a high school teacher as well. While it's patriotic to teach students, I don't take my job so seriously that I think it's even slightly comparable with those who are putting their lives on the line everyday protecting my country.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:43 amI don’t take my job so seriously that I think it’s even slightly comparable with those who are putting their lives on the line everyday protecting my country.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 9:43 am
Too bad for your students. They deserve to be taken seriously. If you did, we might be able to keep them from resorting to violence to solve all their problems.
You might consider us to be at war. Doesn't make it so.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:04 amDidn't say I don't take my students seriously, just my job. As a history teacher, I don't teach them that violence is the answer to all their problems, but I do teach that sometimes violence must be met with violence in order to acheive peace (WWI, WWII, the Gulf War). Hitler never attacked the U.S., but we entered WWII and helped acheive peace for Europe (even France). Funny 60 years later how we complain about troop levels & morale when we don't even have a draft. Thank God there our leaders back then was sensible enough to believe that if we go to war we go to win it, much like Bush today.
You're right. Knowledge is power & knowledge of history is vital for our country's survival. Stick to science.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:17 amYou’re right. Knowledge is power & knowledge of history is vital for our country’s survival. Stick to science.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 10:17 am
I come from a military family. Know who John Basilone is? First Marine to get the Metal of Honor. So don't lecture me about sacrifice. MAny of my family members have died to give you the freedom to post your narrow-minded tripe here.
In the fall I'll be teaching architecture - including history. And you can bet, I'll teach them to learn to problem solve without violence and accept others. Fortunately, there will be someone inclusive out there to counterbalance your ignorance.
War should be a final result in extreme circumstances. East Germany might have qualified. But Iraq did and does not. And it never will.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:26 amMeant: Germany might have qualified. But Iraq did and does not. And it never will.
East Germany was USSR.
Must suck for the Germans...
May 15th, 2006 at 10:28 amExcellent...congratuations on your family history, but what have you done?
You act as if I teach my students that we should just go to war and that we should never attempt to solve problems peacefully. Follow this timeline.
Iraq attacks Kuwait.
US attack Iraq.
Saddam signs a treaty ending the conflict.
US withdraws.
Saddam repeated violates the treaty.
US works with U.N. to enforce the treaty and several U.N. resolutions peacefully.
US attacked on 9/11/2001.
US becomes fearful of WMDs in hands of terrorists.
Saddam still repeated violates the treaty.
US still works with U.N. to enforce the treaty and several U.N. resolutions peacefully.
US gives Iraq ultimatum to hand over evidence of WMD destruction.
Iraq refuses.
US reinstates conflict with Iraq.
War with Iraq was brought on by Iraq attacking a U.S. ally. It was brought on a second time by Saddam not following through with promises he made in the first Gulf War treaty. Explain how we did not attempt to settle the Iraq situation peacefully.
When I teach about the gulf war I teach the truth. This entire thing could have been avoided had Saddam not attacked Kuwait or could have been stopped had he followed through with the treaty. Therefore, the U.S. was not the aggressor. But liberals would rather blame Bush and act as if he just went over and attacked an innocent country, denying any reality of the world in which we live - a dangerous world in which terrorists from Iraq's region of the world would love to destroy the U.S. by any means possible.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:43 amExcellent…congratuations on your family history, but what have you done?
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Besides what I've already told you, the fact that woman cannot fight in combat, and that I am a pacifist who does not believe in taking any life? In terms you recognize - lets start with paying my taxes - lots of them to support those troops. Some of your neocon buddies routinely use that themselves.
Follow this timeline.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 10:43 am
I get the timeline. I just didn't see any logic attached to it. Or the WMDs. The WMDs were the reason. There are none. And the Bush Regime knew this. Joe Wilson told them. You can keep believing in this corrupt regime. Just don't expect me to (not that I did to begin with).
When I teach about the gulf war I teach the truth.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Apparently your version on the truth.
Where's Giacomo to scream about that?
May 15th, 2006 at 11:05 amIf there were no WMDs, why did Saddam refuse to provide everything the inspectors were looking for? Why did he violate UN resolutions for 12 years if there were no WMDs? He certainly had them at one point, because he used them on his own people. How does that make a pacifist feel?
I get the timeline. I just didn’t see any logic attached to it.
Comment by unbelievable — May 15, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Finally, a liberal acknowledging lack of logical thinking.
Let me simplify. And clear thinkers who understand that war is a part of human history and always will be will get the logic.
Saddam provoked U.S. aggression. Saddam has been removed from power by force. It's Saddam's fault, not the U.S.'s.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:15 amSpeaking of narrow minded. Don't you think that not believing in taking any life is a little narrow minded. Do you not think we should be hunting down the terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks even if it means some people might be killed in the process? What if we knew another attack was coming? Should we not kill the attackers who are in the act of committing such an attack?
We honor those who have died for the cause of freedom. What if they weren't willing to do so?
May 15th, 2006 at 11:19 amSpeaking of narrow minded. Don’t you think that not believing in taking any life is a little narrow minded.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Nope.
Let's see. Roughly 3,000 lives lost in Trade Tower attack. How many in Afghanistan? 2400 troups in Iraq. Tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. How many more lives do you want to lose in this decable? When will enough deaths assuage what happened? When will you be happy? Because really, revenge is done for your purpose. Those who are dead cannot be brought back for more spilled blood. Have you ever actually thought this through?
May 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amIt's not revenge and it's not even justice. There are people in this world who want to destroy the United States. It is the job of our President and the military under him to protect us. And, it's not a tit for tat thing. If we lose 5,000 lives protecting our nation and ridding the world of terrorism (or getting it under control) I would argue it would be worth it.
That's the difference between a realist like me & a pacifist like you.
I understand that some lives will be lost (that's the way it is) in order to preserve freedom. And, I give my utmost honor & respect to those who are willing to lay down their lives for me.
You would rather not have anyone lay down their lives for our freedom and as a result open us up to be attacked and even taken over by enemies who would surely end up killing people in the process - you would believe we could negotiate with them and solve any disagreements peacefully. That's an faulty, unrealistic way of looking at the world today and throughout history.
People are going to die. The question is, should they die on our terms for ultimate peace & freedom or on your terms, being killed because they were weak and refused to defend that peace and freedom.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:03 pmIf we lose 5,000 lives protecting our nation and ridding the world of terrorism (or getting it under control) I would argue it would be worth it
Again, it's all about your and your opinion. Who are you to decide who lives and who dies?
Al Qaeda was a tiny little radical group that the Islamic world dismissed as such. It was the current administration that ignored reports and allowed the lunatic to attack us. It's not the giant monster you claim it is. If you ever researched anything yuo might know this.
People are going to die. The question is, should they die on our terms for ultimate peace & freedom or on your terms, being killed because they were weak and refused to defend that peace and freedom.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
So then it's about control? You are not Mother Nature. You cannot control other people. You control freaks never seem to get that until you've made a mess of everything.
Your logic is fallacious. We weren't attacked because we were peaceful (see Switzerland, Canada and tens of other industrialized nations who are peaceful and do not get randomly attacked). We were attacked because we taught Osama that the way to solve problems is with violence (we trained him and gave him weapons). That is called karma. We simply got back what we put out there.
You are NOT a realistic. You're an Idealist. Big difference.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pmIt's not up to me to decide who lives and dies, but it is up to the President to decide who to send into battle and who not to send into battle. And, those people he sends are "volunteers" making a willing decision to put themselves at their government's service to protect and defend our country to the point of death. They didn't join the peace corps.
It was the current administration that ignored reports and allowed the lunatic to attack us.
First of all, it was the Clinton Administration who ignored Al Qaeda which led to them attacking us 9 months into Bush's first term. Secondly, what would a pacifist like yourself want any administration to do to someone who "might" attack us. Let's say we did find out before hand and Bush had either killed or arrested the potential murderers. Liberals would be screaming that the U.S. had done so illegally. Pre-emptively. How dare we arrest or kill someone before they commit a crime.
Can you explain why there have been terrorist attacks in Egypt, U.K., France, & Spain. I'm sure it's either their fault for being allied with the U.S. or it's our fault somehow. Funny how terrorists never get blamed for thier crimes against humanity. It's always someone esle's fault.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmFunny how terrorists never get blamed for thier crimes against humanity. It’s always someone esle’s fault.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
I was advocating mutual responsibility. But I guess that's not an option for you?
May 15th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThat's where the problem lies. Do you believe they are capable of being "responsible"? Because in your last post, you referred to them as lunitics.
I don't believe it's realistic to reason with lunitics. If they want to kill us, we must stop them before they do.
For the record, I'm a realist. Idealy, everything would be lovie dovey & peaceful as we both wish it were. But it's not that way in the real world. You're the idealist.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:14 pmWe gave them weapons and trained them how to use them to kill people. They accepted.
They are responsible for their actions. So are we.
Clear?
May 15th, 2006 at 2:34 pmFor the record, I’m a realist. Idealy, everything would be lovie dovey & peaceful as we both wish it were. But it’s not that way in the real world. You’re the idealist.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:35 pmOk, let me get this straight. During the cold war when we were trying to contain the Soviets, we gave weapons to some people to protect themselves and help us fight. Now we're responsible for them wanting to kill us? That makes sense.
So, who's responsible for the drunk driver killing someone? The driver's mom who taught him to drive or the bar tender who sold him the drinks?
May 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThat makes sense.
Of course it does. You just don't want to see it. You want someone to be 100% at fault, therefore you can identify the 'good' guys and the "bad guys". A realist would know that here are no such things. Only an idealist would want that clear cut distinction.
So, who’s responsible for the drunk driver killing someone? The driver’s mom who taught him to drive or the bar tender who sold him the drinks?
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Not the same. Give me an apple to compare to an apple, and not a pineapple (e.g. - Who is to blame for a drunker driver killing someone who had earlier bought him liquorr that night and then taught him how to drink while driving? That would be comparable. And both would be responisble. Get it yet?).
We aren't victms as a nation. We lbought, loaded and handed the gun to those who were willing to kill for money, people whom they had no grievances against. Someday, years later, when that have a grievance against us, how exactly do you expect them to react? The way they were taught - with more violence. How are you missing the cause and effect here? It seems so elementary and obvious.
May 15th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWhen he goes on TV tonight, W should simply issue a statement that Cheney will be elephant hunting along the US border with Mexico for the next 980 days. The Dick, in that case, would be as effective as 300,000 troops in deterring illegals.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThis item says that my post #19 spotted the real reason for securing the border. More profit for the Dick:
May 15th, 2006 at 7:30 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400773.html
The New World order must be leaping for joy over this plan to keep the borders open to those who enter by breaking the laws. How many terrorists will continue to flow in on Fox's freeway?
May 15th, 2006 at 9:24 pmunbelievable,
It doesn't matter who taught who to do what. You make it sound as if the U.S. is some sort of parent and these radical muslims are helpless little children who have no ability to think for themselves.
Was Hitler a good guy or bad guy? Was the U.S. good or bad for going after him?
The fact of the matter is we did nothing to provoke 9/11. We were attacked. Innocent people were attacked and killed. The men who flew the planes and those who planned the attacks are "bad" guys. Our military including our commander in chief are the "good" guys trying to stop such nonsense from happening again.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:20 amYou make it sound as if the U.S. is some sort of parent and these radical muslims are helpless little children who have no ability to think for themselves.
Comment by C Storms — May 16, 2006 @ 6:20 am
No I don't. You're just twisting what I say to think that. Don't and maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from.
The fact of the matter is we did nothing to provoke 9/11. We were attacked.
Comment by C Storms — May 16, 2006 @ 6:20 am
The fact of the matter is that you are in denial. Our government trained Osama and gave him money and weapons. You wanna ignore that fact, that's your prerogative. But don't expect me or everyone one else to be so one sided.
The men who flew the planes and those who planned the attacks are “bad†guys. Our military including our commander in chief are the “good†guys trying to stop such nonsense from happening again.
Comment by C Storms — May 16, 2006 @ 6:20 am
You just validated my earlier post that you need absolutes - 100% pure 'good' and 'bad' without any realistic grasp at all. That's your perspective. But it's all it is. To those people, we were bad and they good. It's what motivated their actions. It's why you are an idealist and idealists are always blowing things up for some noble cause swearing that god is on their side. Bunch of delusion.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:59 amThe way they were taught - with more violence. How are you missing the cause and effect here?
Sounds like we're the teachers and they're the students to me. Your words, not mine.
Training someone to use weapons is not a provocation for them to attack you. We did not provoke 9/11 by giving them weapons. And to say how do you expect them to act is proving my parent/child analogy of your thinking to be true.
To compare their thinking that bombing innocent civilians is good to our thinking that protecting the world for their terroism is good is ridiculous. There is evil and good in this world.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:37 amCStorms,
It is clear that you need for us to be the innocent victims and the 'good guys'. You are debating with emotion and opinion on this subject and not facts. When I present facts, you turn them around so that you can argue them in an emotional capacity. Fine. Knock yourself out. I just see no purpose in continuing an emotional debate when emotion cannot be reasoned with.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:19 am[...] has a little more. Filed Under: This Week, Chuck Hagel, Immigration Trackback Permalink postCount('8282'); | EMail ThisPost [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 3:46 amIn Fact, I work in New Orleans, where as you know many illegal immigrants work. I personally know 40-50 Latinos. Not 1 of the 40 -50 illegal immigrants crossed any border, at least not by foot. Everyone has flown.......right over the gereneral publics' head, literally in airplanes.
Hmmm.....N.G.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:46 am[...] Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel has by far the sanest take on this misuse of the military to pander to the the president’s restive base: [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 am