Combat Infantryman's Badge
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Combat Infantryman's Badge
In our own country perhaps? http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news...ry0104-CR.html
#2
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
#5
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
The worst part is that people are looking down on the NG as incompetent when the ROE has to be stacked against them. There's no way they could have lost, especially considering helicopters are a radio call away.
What blows my mind is that these guys obviously meant business as drug runners seeing how they had weapons. Someone want to run by why the hell we're bothering protecting the border when we're not allowing our men to protect themselves first? The problem is that the US Govt doesn't want it to seem like we're at war with Mexico.
Just goes to show you how full of **** the left really is seeing how a lot of Republicans would gladly take-up arms against these smugglers. From what i've heard this isn't the first time we've encountered Mexicans armed and ready to play ball. I've heard it happens down there often. Not that those on the left like the idea of war because we all know most do not, but we finally have a domestic and defensive purpose to utilize our military and mum's the word. Brilliant!
What blows my mind is that these guys obviously meant business as drug runners seeing how they had weapons. Someone want to run by why the hell we're bothering protecting the border when we're not allowing our men to protect themselves first? The problem is that the US Govt doesn't want it to seem like we're at war with Mexico.
Just goes to show you how full of **** the left really is seeing how a lot of Republicans would gladly take-up arms against these smugglers. From what i've heard this isn't the first time we've encountered Mexicans armed and ready to play ball. I've heard it happens down there often. Not that those on the left like the idea of war because we all know most do not, but we finally have a domestic and defensive purpose to utilize our military and mum's the word. Brilliant!
Last edited by Salty; 01-05-2007 at 11:15 PM.
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 2,070
Car Info: 1995 Impreza L
Also why do we allow the news to broadcast such obvious deficiencies in border control. Lets make sure we make every effort to expose our weaknesses. Let these guys protect themselves, as well as our border from obvious trash. I've heard stories that are right out of movies from Agents, while in Socal. Sorry if I sound a little lost, typing on painkillers sucks.
#7
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Originally Posted by Salty
Just goes to show you how full of **** the left really is seeing how a lot of Republicans would gladly take-up arms against these smugglers. From what i've heard this isn't the first time we've encountered Mexicans armed and ready to play ball. I've heard it happens down there often. Not that those on the left like the idea of war because we all know most do not, but we finally have a domestic and defensive purpose to utilize our military and mum's the word. Brilliant!
#9
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by ipozestu
Salty, I think you may be confusing the Republicans and Conservatives. The GOP is equally responsible for the lack of attention at the border. The border issue plays into both parties agendas. "A Government For The People, By The People". I raise the BS flag.
But at least a lot more has been done when the GOP is in power. NG is on the border despite not being able to do **** (obviously - according to this article) and a fence is going up in some parts despite it not being the best idea to a lot of people (including me). That said, if the GOP is equally responsible for the lack of attention at the border then Clinton is equally responsible for 9/11.
Last edited by Salty; 01-06-2007 at 03:11 PM.
#10
Originally Posted by Salty
If the GOP is equally responsible for the lack of attention at the border then Clinton is equally responsible for 9/11.
With that said, Clinton is as far away from responsibility to 9/11, regardless of all actions against the middle-east during his presidency. It wasn't Clinton getting briefed daily, seemingly shrugging off information given the few days and weeks before 9/11. Did someone cry scapegoat?
Originally Posted by Salty
But at least a lot more has been done when the GOP is in power.
http://www.theamericanresistance.com...vereignty.html
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."
"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."
This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.
A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."
The document's frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document's "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
To no one's surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.
The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.
The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.
The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.
Here's another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.
To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.
The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.
Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR's integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.
"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."
This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.
A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."
The document's frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document's "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
To no one's surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.
The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.
The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.
The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.
Here's another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.
To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.
The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.
Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR's integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.
Last edited by lethalpsi; 01-06-2007 at 04:32 PM.
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Originally Posted by Salty
That said, if the GOP is equally responsible for the lack of attention at the border then Clinton is equally responsible for 9/11.
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Northern Bay Area: Larkspur
Posts: 1,004
Car Info: 02 Silver WRX sedan. Eibach springs, Blitz NUR cat back, Rota 17" Attacks, Cobb AccessPort/DP
Just look at the Guardsmen they posted at the GGB. Pretty useless, just for show. If they were being fired upon by people trying to kill them, then they had a right to defend themselves with deadly force. If all the elements to use deadly force were in place and they failed to do so then they are truly worthless.
I'm willing to bet that the situation was a bit less serious than is being made out to be. Perhaps they retreated to a bunker or safer and more easily defended position. Maybe they heard a shot fired but were unsure weather it was aimed at them or not...probably a lot of what if's. So they fell back a to a safer position and waited to see what the bad guys were going to do. Giving them the benefit of doubt here...
I'm willing to bet that the situation was a bit less serious than is being made out to be. Perhaps they retreated to a bunker or safer and more easily defended position. Maybe they heard a shot fired but were unsure weather it was aimed at them or not...probably a lot of what if's. So they fell back a to a safer position and waited to see what the bad guys were going to do. Giving them the benefit of doubt here...
#13
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by ipozestu
I agree with this. The Bush administration has completely pushed the border on a back burner.
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
I know of a certain Major (at the time he was a Captain) that did drug enforcement on the border as his very first Special Forces assignment. That being said I also heard that the drug runners there are armed better than most insurgents in Iraq are. How in the hell can a leader stand for exposing his men to such danger with ROE like that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sjice
Used Aftermarket Car Parts For Sale
3
02-28-2007 06:52 PM
BongMonster
For Sale by Members
0
11-15-2003 12:42 PM