So....stopping an "invasion" before it gets to the U.S. is now "nation building?"

[jmdrake]

So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." With that said, I'm surprised that some resist the idea that rather than risking an expansion of the police state in the United States or worse, martial law inside the United States, that we should deploy troops south of the U.S. border because "nation building."

Well...if we go with the invasion analogy, if China established a beach head in Guatemala and started pushing its way north with a clear intention of entering the U.S., would anyone really be against helping Mexico stop the Chinese advance while it was still in Mexico? That, to me anyway, makes no sense. I know Ron Paul said when he was running that he supported troops defending our border over having them defend the Iraqi border. I think getting troops out of places like Iraq, no matter what the excuse, is a good thing. But look at what Ron says here at 16:15

"I don't like militarization around the world and I especially don't like it on our border."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTbEszeLh88

You can be against illegal immigration and be against a police state to fight it. See:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pH-Ac6-No

[nikcers]

“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

-John Quincy Adams

[phill4paul]

“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

-John Quincy Adams

Quite the dichotomy the OP makes. He agrees with Ron Paul's stance regarding any increase in border security. And chastises members for disagreeing. A wall will keep us in! He disregards Ron Paul's words about foreign intervention and foreign aid.. And does not see the cognitive dissonance.

[TheTexan]

Currently we're taxed at a reasonable ~50% of our income, if you add up all taxes

Given current trends, in 10 years time we'll probably be taxed at ~53% of our income.

If, however, we allow these goddamned illegal immigrants to come here and influence our politics, in 10 years time we'll be taxed at 54% of our income instead of 53% !!!!

Clearly stopping these illegal immigrants is a HUGE priority and is where our attention should be at.

[TheTexan]

//

[nikcers]

Currently we're taxed at a reasonable ~50% of our income, if you add up all taxes

Given current trends, in 10 years time we'll probably be taxed at ~53% of our income.

If, however, we allow these goddamned illegal immigrants to come here and influence our politics, in 10 years time we'll be taxed at 54% of our income instead of 53% !!!!

Clearly stopping these illegal immigrants is a HUGE priority and is where our attention should be at.
You just might be on to something.. if we divide the national debt by the population each person owes too much money to ever pay back. We will probably be paying interest on the interest. If you were to increase the popluation though by like 800% it would be a much lower amount of debt per person. So we should just start protecting everyones borders and taxing them to pay for it.

[jmdrake]

“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

-John Quincy Adams


Quite the dichotomy the OP makes. He agrees with Ron Paul's stance regarding any increase in border security. And chastises members for disagreeing. A wall will keep us in! He disregards Ron Paul's words about foreign intervention and foreign aid.. And does not see the cognitive dissonance.

I see logic an reason has left both of you. If there is a real invasion then repelling the invasion, wherever it is, is not "foreign intervention." It was not "foreign intervention" for the United States to attack Midway Island after Pearl Harbor. If the Chinese were to land an invading army in Mexico with the clear intent of bringing that army into the United States, it would not be "foreign intervention" to attack the Chinese while they were still in Mexico. You both have just confirmed what I thought was true. All this "invasion" talk from you and others like you is just total pretext. Thank you for clearing that up. I don't think the migrants are "invaders" and Ron Paul doesn't either. But if they were invaders, as you claimed (and now that claim is exposed as a pretext) then stopping that invasion before it reached the U.S. border would be the only sensible course of action.

[nikcers]

I see logic an reason has left both of you. If there is a real invasion then repelling the invasion, wherever it is, is not "foreign intervention." It was not "foreign intervention" for the United States to attack Midway Island after Pearl Harbor. If the Chinese were to land an invading army in Mexico with the clear intent of bringing that army into the United States, it would not be "foreign intervention" to attack the Chinese while they were still in Mexico. You both have just confirmed what I thought was true. All this "invasion" talk from you and others like you is just total pretext. Thank you for clearing that up. I don't think the migrants are "invaders" and Ron Paul doesn't either. But if they were invaders, as you claimed (and now that claim is exposed as a pretext) then stopping that invasion before it reached the U.S. border would be the only sensible course of action.

Building infrastracture in someone else's country that benefits that nation isn't nation building? When Ron Paul opposed nation building did he say we should be building infrastacture for other nations?

[jmdrake]

Building infrastracture in someone else's country that benefits that nation isn't nation building? When Ron Paul opposed nation building did he say we should be building infrastacture for other nations?

So when we built an airfield on Midway Island as a part of rolling back the Japanese war machine that had attacked the United States you considered that "nation building?" Interesting. Illogical but interesting. Nation building is not done for the purpose of stopping an invasion. Nation building is done for the purpose of "winning hearts and minds."

[nikcers]

So when we built an airfield on Midway Island as a part of rolling back the Japanese war machine that had attacked the United States you considered that "nation building?" Interesting. Illogical but interesting. Nation building is not done for the purpose of stopping an invasion. Nation building is done for the purpose of "winning hearts and minds."

We shouldn't build anything in another country unless they pay us to do it. We aren't the policemen of the world, we don't owe another country free protection and defence. Are you seriously trying to say that we wouldn't get stovepiped into a war if the country we were supplying infrastractue to goes to war? That's exactly what happened in world war 2 when they sunk one of our ships because we were providing a ton of supplies to the allies before we got involved.

[jmdrake]

We shouldn't build anything in another country unless they pay us to do it.

That's a pretty stupid idea if we are trying to stop an invasion.



We aren't the policemen of the world, we don't owe another country free protection and defence.


You aren't "policing the world" if you are trying to stop an invasion of your own country.



Are you seriously trying to say that we wouldn't get stovepiped into a war if the country we were supplying infrastractue to goes to war?

If there is an active invasion already headed to the border of the United States then the war has already happened. Maybe you agree with me now that the migrant crisis is not an invasion? If so then great! You are making progress.


That's exactly what happened in world war 2 when they sunk one of our ships because we were providing a ton of supplies to the allies before we got involved.

Umm....you are thinking World War 1 and the Luistania. But at this point I'm not expecting you to have a good command of U.S. history.

Edit: Some more U.S. history you probably didn't know about. Prior to our entering World War I, Germany tried to get Mexico to invade the United States. That attempt failed. But if Germany had decided to land in Mexico anyway and fight their way north with the purpose of invading the United States, helping Mexico repel the Germans, and even building infrastructure aid in that effort, would not have been "nation building" or "policing the world."

[shakey1]

“America... goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

-John Quincy Adams

... rolls over in his grave.

[nikcers]

That's a pretty stupid idea if we are trying to stop an invasion.



You aren't "policing the world" if you are trying to stop an invasion of your own country.




If there is an active invasion already headed to the border of the United States then the war has already happened. Maybe you agree with me now that the migrant crisis is not an invasion? If so then great! You are making progress.



Umm....you are thinking World War 1 and the Luistania. But at this point I'm not expecting you to have a good command of U.S. history.

Edit: Some more U.S. history you probably didn't know about. Prior to our entering World War I, Germany tried to get Mexico to invade the United States. That attempt failed. But if Germany had decided to land in Mexico anyway and fight their way north with the purpose of invading the United States, helping Mexico repel the Germans, and even building infrastructure aid in that effort, would not have been "nation building" or "policing the world."



After the start of World War II in Europe in September 1939, the US, which hadn't declared war, provided some aid to Allied countries.
That included help escorting convoys across the Atlantic, which put US ships in the line of fire.
On October 31, 1941, a Nazi U-boat claimed the first US warship sunk by the enemy in World War II.

[PAF]

Ron Paul stated that once he left congress the gloves would come off.

Ron has more insight into the inner workings of the White House than most of us here and no politician is more honest than Ron.

Why people, especially around here, have stopped heeding Ron’s words is beyond me, it is as if folks think they have surpassed Ron’s knowledge, insight and future-sight into government affairs.

Perhaps now you will see why us principled folks vehemently oppose that wall and police state tactics when the actual solution is simple and right before our very eyes.

Thanks jmdrake for posting this:


https://youtu.be/U0pH-Ac6-No

[jmdrake]

After the start of World War II in Europe in September 1939, the US, which hadn't declared war, provided some aid to Allied countries.
That included help escorting convoys across the Atlantic, which put US ships in the line of fire.
On October 31, 1941, a Nazi U-boat claimed the first US warship sunk by the enemy in World War II.


That didn't get us into World War II. Pearl Harbor got us into World War II. Nice try but that you have just disproved your own argument since you claimed that our supplying the allies was what "stovepiped us" into World War II. And Pearl Harbor happened because of the U.S. embargo of Japan. What is Trump trying to do now? Embargo Iran and China. Hmmmmm......

Now back to the actual thread. Why, if you believe the "invasion" is already going on (maybe you don't anymore) do you not support stopping the "invasion" while it is still in Mexico? Again, after World War II had actually started and the United States had actual been attacked, it made zero sense to say "We need to fight the Japanese invaders!....But only if they actually make it all the way to U.S. soil." Speak on that issue...if you have the courage. (I realize you may not).

[nikcers]

That didn't get us into World War II. Pearl Harbor got us into World War II. Nice try but that you have just disproved your own argument since you claimed that our supplying the allies was what "stovepiped us" into World War II. And Pearl Harbor happened because of the U.S. embargo of Japan. What is Trump trying to do now? Embargo Iran and China. Hmmmmm......

Now back to the actual thread. Why, if you believe the "invasion" is already going on (maybe you don't anymore) do you not support stopping the "invasion" while it is still in Mexico? Again, after World War II had actually started and the United States had actual been attacked, it made zero sense to say "We need to fight the Japanese invaders!....But only if they actually make it all the way to U.S. soil." Speak on that issue...if you have the courage. (I realize you may not).

I disagree with you entirely,. Pearl harbor sold the war to the Americans, but Germany sinking our ships and being unapologetic about it was what made us be in a defacto cold war. Germany was the first one to sink an American ship not Japan.

[ATruepatriot]

I disagree with you enittrely. Pearl harbor sold the war to the Americans, but Germany sinking our ships and being unapologetic about it was what made us be in a defacto cold war. Germany was the first one to sink an American ship not Japan.

You are absolutely correct. And Pearl Harbor was conveniently " allowed" to happen later to get us into the war.

[Anti Federalist]

Now back to the actual thread. Why, if you believe the "invasion" is already going on (maybe you don't anymore) do you not support stopping the "invasion" while it is still in Mexico? Again, after World War II had actually started and the United States had actual been attacked, it made zero sense to say "We need to fight the Japanese invaders!....But only if they actually make it all the way to U.S. soil." Speak on that issue...if you have the courage. (I realize you may not).

Check your history.

One of the largest mobilizations of "unorganized militias" and citizens occurred state-side during WWII.

Millions of people were part of the Civil Defense system.

Million of hours of flight time were logged by Civil Air Patrol pilots, they hampered and disrupted German U-boat operations on the east coast significantly.

Even though Yamamoto's famous quote: "America cannot be invaded, for there would a rifle pointed at us from behind every blade of grass" may be spurious, the idea is not and it had been mentioned many times among the Japanese military leadership that a ground invasion of the US would be next to impossible.

Force projection into the Pacific was carried out mostly by the Navy, against relatively small island targets.

The bulk of national defense, was, in fact, concentrated on the mainland, at the border, at the shoreline, on both coasts.

Mainland Japan never was invaded.

It sounds like you're advocating a bombing campaign against Mexico to stop the invading hordes, which is exactly what these people are, to stop them before they get here.

Really? And I'm the one who has lost my way and become a "syhll" or whatever the pejorative term is for today to apply to somebody who uses logic, reason and common sense to look at a situation, realizes that a change has occurred, and adjusts their thinking accordingly?

What is happening is an invasion.

It is "Fifth Generation" warfare, and will require "Fifth Generation" tactics to defeat it.

[TheTexan]

It is "Fifth Generation" warfare, and will require "Fifth Generation" tactics to defeat it.

Posting really hard on message boards?

[nikcers]

Posting really hard on message boards?

do you got any sick memes?

[TheTexan]

do you got any sick memes?

http://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED168/55e8df57dac3d.jpeg

[Anti Federalist]

Posting really hard on message boards?

Of course not.

I plan to vote harder than I ever have in 2020.

[TheTexan]

Of course not.

I plan to vote harder than I ever have in 2020.

+rep vote like your life depends on it, because it does. The invaders will stop at nothing to ruin our Great way of life

[Swordsmyth]

I can't believe that jmdrake wants us to buy the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" nonsense.

We can handle this at our border just fine, at most we need only go about 100 yards into Mexico to deal with the false narrative that border enforcement by the military would violate Posse Comitatus.

[jmdrake]

I can't believe that jmdrake wants us to buy the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" nonsense.

We can handle this at our border just fine, at most we need only go about 100 yards into Mexico to deal with the false narrative that border enforcement by the military would violate Posse Comitatus.

I can't believe you are so full of shyt. Actually I can believe it. You don't actually think this is an "invasion." If it was you would support stopping it where it started. After 9/11, Dr. Paul, Mr. "non interventionist" himself voted to send troops INTO AFGHANISTAN in order to prevent another attack on the United States. If he were in congress and there was a real invasion coming up through Mexico, i.e. Chinese troops and tanks, he wouldn't sit on his ass (like you apparently) and wait for the invasion to reach the border. So either you don't actually believe this is an invasion or you don't know jack shyt about what non interventionism actually means. Which is it?

[jmdrake]

Check your history.

One of the largest mobilizations of "unorganized militias" and citizens occurred state-side during WWII.

Millions of people were part of the Civil Defense system.

Million of hours of flight time were logged by Civil Air Patrol pilots, they hampered and disrupted German U-boat operations on the east coast significantly.

Even though Yamamoto's famous quote: "America cannot be invaded, for there would a rifle pointed at us from behind every blade of grass" may be spurious, the idea is not and it had been mentioned many times among the Japanese military leadership that a ground invasion of the US would be next to impossible.

Force projection into the Pacific was carried out mostly by the Navy, against relatively small island targets.

The bulk of national defense, was, in fact, concentrated on the mainland, at the border, at the shoreline, on both coasts.

Mainland Japan never was invaded.

It sounds like you're advocating a bombing campaign against Mexico to stop the invading hordes, which is exactly what these people are, to stop them before they get here.

Really? And I'm the one who has lost my way and become a "syhll" or whatever the pejorative term is for today to apply to somebody who uses logic, reason and common sense to look at a situation, realizes that a change has occurred, and adjusts their thinking accordingly?

What is happening is an invasion.

It is "Fifth Generation" warfare, and will require "Fifth Generation" tactics to defeat it.

Nothing that you wrote actually changes anything I said. My history is 100% correct. We mobilized state side and outside the United States. Same thing post 9/11. After 9/11, Dr. Paul, Mr. "non interventionist" himself voted to send troops INTO AFGHANISTAN in order to prevent another attack on the United States. If he were in congress and there was a real invasion coming up through Mexico, i.e. Chinese troops and tanks, he wouldn't sit on his butt the invasion to reach the border. I respect you A.F., but you aren't being logical this time.

[Swordsmyth]

I can't believe you are so full of shyt. Actually I can believe it. You don't actually think this is an "invasion." If it was you would support stopping it where it started. After 9/11, Dr. Paul, Mr. "non interventionist" himself voted to send troops INTO AFGHANISTAN in order to prevent another attack on the United States. If he were in congress and there was a real invasion coming up through Mexico, i.e. Chinese troops and tanks, he wouldn't sit on his ass (like you apparently) and wait for the invasion to reach the border. So either you don't actually believe this is an invasion or you don't know jack shyt about what non interventionism actually means. Which is it?
You know nothing about war, it is foolish and wasteful to expend resources attacking foreign countries when we can handle the problem at our border and getting involved in the foreign countries would in this case only make the problem worse because of the asymmetrical nature of the threat.

[Swordsmyth]

Nothing that you wrote actually changes anything I said. My history is 100% correct. We mobilized state side and outside the United States. Same thing post 9/11. After 9/11, Dr. Paul, Mr. "non interventionist" himself voted to send troops INTO AFGHANISTAN in order to prevent another attack on the United States. If he were in congress and there was a real invasion coming up through Mexico, i.e. Chinese troops and tanks, he wouldn't sit on his butt the invasion to reach the border. I respect you A.F., but you aren't being logical this time.
Voting for the Afghan war was a colossal mistake, securing our borders and reforming our immigration system would have been much better.

Might I suggest a new Avatar?


https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/Ambassador-John-Bolton-NeoCon-Donald-Trump-HR-McMaster-Mad-Dog-Mattis-Geopolitics-VIVISXN-MEDIA-We-love-John-Bolton-Big-Bad-Walrus-Moustache%20%281%29_0.jpg

[jmdrake]

I disagree with you entirely,. Pearl harbor sold the war to the Americans, but Germany sinking our ships and being unapologetic about it was what made us be in a defacto cold war. Germany was the first one to sink an American ship not Japan.

You don't actually "disagree with me entirely" because you said "Pearl harbor sold the war to the Americans." You are really disagreeing with yourself. We were not "stovepiped" into World War II by U-boat activity. Those who wanted a "cold war" with Germany were doing that before any U.S. boats were sunk. Your own analysis shows that. And it was the embargoes that caused Pearl Harbor, not the German u-boats.

That said, let's come back to the thread subject shall we? If Chinese troops landed in Guatamela and invaded Mexico with the clear intention of fighting their way to the United States would you REALLY be against sending troops into Mexico to build tank traps to stop the Chinese advance? Yes or no? I think you are afraid to answer that question. I doubt Swordsmyth will bother answering it either.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't actually "disagree with me entirely" because you said "Pearl harbor sold the war to the Americans." You are really disagreeing with yourself. We were not "stovepiped" into World War II by U-boat activity. Those who wanted a "cold war" with Germany were doing that before any U.S. boats were sunk. Your own analysis shows that. And it was the embargoes that caused Pearl Harbor, not the German u-boats.

That said, let's come back to the thread subject shall we? If Chinese troops landed in Guatamela and invaded Mexico with the clear intention of fighting their way to the United States would you REALLY be against sending troops into Mexico to build tank traps to stop the Chinese advance? Yes or no? I think you are afraid to answer that question. I doubt @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) will bother answering it either.
Your attempts to conflate orthodox warfare and asymmetric warfare are ignorant and foolish.

[jmdrake]

Voting for the Afghan war was a colossal mistake, securing our borders and reforming our immigration system would have been much better.

Might I suggest a new Avatar?


https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/Ambassador-John-Bolton-NeoCon-Donald-Trump-HR-McMaster-Mad-Dog-Mattis-Geopolitics-VIVISXN-MEDIA-We-love-John-Bolton-Big-Bad-Walrus-Moustache%20%281%29_0.jpg

Is that avatar for yourself? It fits you dumbass. The reason Afghanistan was a colossal mistake is because there really wasn't an Al Qaeda threat. (See my sig). But for those who believed Al Qaeda really posed an existential threat to the U.S. .... well it doesn't any more.

But let me see if I understand your position exactly. Yes or no question. If Chinese troops landed in Guatemala and were headed north with tanks with the clearly stated objective of invading the U.S., would you be against the U.S. assisting Mexico by building tank traps to slow the advance down? Yes or no.

[jmdrake]

Your attempts to conflate orthodox warfare and asymmetric warfare are ignorant and foolish.

In other words you are too much of a coward to answer the question. Got it.

[Swordsmyth]

Is that avatar for yourself? It fits you dumbass. The reason Afghanistan was a colossal mistake is because there really wasn't an Al Qaeda threat. (See my sig). But for those who believed Al Qaeda really posed an existential threat to the U.S. .... well it doesn't any more.

LOL Al Qaeda poses just as much of a threat today as it did before the war, you continue to demonstrate your inability to understand asymmetric warfare and how to deal with it.

Invading the foreign countries like you suggest only helps the enemy with its goal of destroying the US.


In other words you are too much of a coward to answer the question. Got it.

I did answer it.

[jmdrake]

LOL Al Qaeda poses just as much of a threat today as it did before the war, you continue to demonstrate your inability to understand asymmetric warfare and how to deal with it.

:rolleyes: How many buildings have come down in the U.S. last year? How many Al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. last year? And "I'm a Muslim and I'm going to yell Allah Akbar and say I was inspired by Al Qaeda as I run a rental truck down an sidewalk" doesn't count. I'm talking about attacks with operational control, money flows ect.



Invading the foreign countries like you suggest only helps the enemy with its goal of destroying the US.


You are dumb as hell. If Mexico was getting invaded by China and asked for help then helping them would not be an "invasion."



I did answer it.

No you didn't.

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes: How many buildings have come down in the U.S. last year? How many Al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. last year? And "I'm a Muslim and I'm going to yell Allah Akbar and say I was inspired by Al Qaeda as I run a rental truck down an sidewalk" doesn't count. I'm talking about attacks with operational control, money flows ect.
You buy that Al CIAda pulled off 9/11 without inside help?
LOL

Nothing about the Afghan war has diminished the ability of terrorists to attack us.




You are dumb as hell. If Mexico was getting invaded by China and asked for help then helping them would not be an "invasion."
That's a nice example of your usual dishonest debate tactics, I was quite obviously referring to your suggestion that in real life we invade Mexico and Central America to deal with the migrant invasion.




No you didn't.
Yes I did.
I you are too dumb to understand it isn't my fault.

[jmdrake]

You buy that Al CIAda pulled off 9/11 without inside help?
LOL

:rolleyes: Read my sig against. I don't buy anything about the official story of 9/11. You are showing your lack of reading skills. I clearly said But for those who believed Al Qaeda really posed an existential threat to the U.S. What part of that do you not understand? Ron Paul really believed we had been attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda without inside help when he voted for authorization for military force against Afghanistan. And had that truly been the case then the Afghan war, at least initially, would have been justified until that immediate threat was neutralized. But I don't believe that was the case. And neither do you apparently.



Nothing about the Afghan war has diminished the ability of terrorists to attack us.


That's because the Afghan "invasion" was as fake as your Guatemala "invasion." But if there was a real invasion then taken steps to stop or at least slow down the invasion before it hit our shores would be justified.



That's a nice example of your usual dishonest debate tactics,


You are the one being dishonest (as usual) or maybe just stupid. You clearly ignored that I qualified my remarks to those who actually believed the official 9/11 story.

[Stratovarious]

So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." ...

It is an invasion , and a well orchestrated one at that , so what is your point?

[jmdrake]

It is an invasion , and a well orchestrated one at that , so what is your point?

:rolleyes: Thread title. "So stopping an invasion before it gets to the U.S. is now nation building?" That's the point.

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes: Read my sig against. I don't buy anything about the official story of 9/11. You are showing your lack of reading skills. I clearly said But for those who believed Al Qaeda really posed an existential threat to the U.S. What part of that do you not understand? Ron Paul really believed we had been attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda without inside help when he voted for authorization for military force against Afghanistan. And had that truly been the case then the Afghan war, at least initially, would have been justified until that immediate threat was neutralized. But I don't believe that was the case. And neither do you apparently.



That's because the Afghan "invasion" was as fake as your Guatemala "invasion." But if there was a real invasion then taken steps to stop or at least slow down the invasion before it hit our shores would be justified.



You are the one being dishonest (as usual) or maybe just stupid. You clearly ignored that I qualified my remarks to those who actually believed the official 9/11 story.
If the official story was true it would have been stupid to invade Afghanistan and doing so would not have diminished the threat from the terrorists and your call to invade the countries to our south would be entirely counter productive.

[jmdrake]

If the official story was true it would have been stupid to invade Afghanistan and doing so would not have diminished the threat from the terrorists and your call to invade the countries to our south would be entirely counter productive.

So you think terrorists having a base of operations where they can coordinate hundreds of thousands of dollars being sent to the United States for the purposes of carrying out terror attacks inside the United States and elsewhere (African bombings for example) is not a problem at all. Got it. If the official story was true then there have not been any such large scale attacks against the United States since we invaded Afghanistan. Again, I don't believe the official story (and neither do you), but if it were true then the initial invasion made sense and was successful. Staying there nearly two decades does not make sense.

[Swordsmyth]

So you think terrorists having a base of operations where they can coordinate hundreds of thousands of dollars being sent to the United States for the purposes of carrying out terror attacks inside the United States and elsewhere (African bombings for example) is not a problem at all. Got it. If the official story was true then there have not been any such large scale attacks against the United States since we invaded Afghanistan. Again, I don't believe the official story (and neither do you), but if it were true then the initial invasion made sense and was successful. Staying there nearly two decades does not make sense.
They simply shifted to a new location.

And the migrant invasion is a different phenomenon that is even less centralized.

[Stratovarious]

So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." ...


It is an invasion , and a well orchestrated one at that , so what is your point?


:rolleyes: Thread title. "So stopping an invasion before it gets to the U.S. is now nation building?" That's the point.

That's rather entertaining, I asked you about your comment, you know , that 'thing that you wrote'
, and you run to 'something else' ; Hey look it's 'Halley's Comet' .

By the way , check the skies in 2061 , I hear that is 'passes' again......

[jmdrake]

That's rather entertaining, I asked you about your comment, you know , that 'thing that you wrote'
, and you run to 'something else' ; Hey look it's 'Halley's Comet' .

By the way , check the skies in 2061 , I hear that is 'passes' again......

You asked the point. I told you. Next?

[jmdrake]

They simply shifted to a new location.

As long as the new location doesn't involve buildings being blown up in the U.S. I don't give a crap and I suspect most Americans don't either.



And the migrant invasion is a different phenomenon that is even less centralized.

It's so "less centralized" that apparently MAGA things it can be stopped with a border wall. :rolleyes: Of course there's also the face scanning cameras and drones and martial law and all of the other police state stuff the neocons have been salivating over for years. They should have used this excuse first and saved themselves the trouble.

[Stratovarious]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jmdrake http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6790991#post6790991) So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." ...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Stratovarious http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6799464#post6799464)
It is an invasion , and a well orchestrated one at that , so what is your point?




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jmdrake http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6799467#post6799467)
:rolleyes: Thread title. "So stopping an invasion before it gets to the U.S. is now nation building?" That's the point.



That's rather entertaining, I asked you about your comment, you know , that 'thing that you wrote'
, and you run to 'something else' ; Hey look it's 'Halley's Comet' .

By the way , check the skies in 2061 , I hear that is 'passes' again......
You asked the point. I told you. Next?
You seriously want to continue trying to weasel out of what you wrote, your words ?


Wut ?



Ok , please do........

[Swordsmyth]

As long as the new location doesn't involve buildings being blown up in the U.S. I don't give a crap and I suspect most Americans don't either.

There you go trying to use the official story again, the terrorists are and would be just as capable of pulling off 9/11 whether the official story was true or not.



It's so "less centralized" that apparently MAGA things it can be stopped with a border wall.
Because they concentrate ON OUR BORDER, that is why it is best for us to stop it AT OUR BORDER.



:rolleyes: Of course there's also the face scanning cameras and drones and martial law and all of the other police state stuff the neocons have been salivating over for years. They should have used this excuse first and saved themselves the trouble.
Maybe we should stop it AT OUR BORDER and not give them an excuse for any of that OR FOR INVADING MORE COUNTRIES.

[jmdrake]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jmdrake http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6790991#post6790991) So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." ...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Stratovarious http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6799464#post6799464)
It is an invasion , and a well orchestrated one at that , so what is your point?




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jmdrake http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6799467#post6799467)
:rolleyes: Thread title. "So stopping an invasion before it gets to the U.S. is now nation building?" That's the point.



That's rather entertaining, I asked you about your comment, you know , that 'thing that you wrote'
, and you run to 'something else' ; Hey look it's 'Halley's Comet' .

By the way , check the skies in 2061 , I hear that is 'passes' again......
You seriously want to continue trying to weasel out of what you wrote, your words ?


Wut ?



Ok , please do........

I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything dipshyt. The point is simple. If this is an invasion then it would make sense to stop it before it hit the border.

[jmdrake]

There you go trying to use the official story again, the terrorists are and would be just as capable of pulling off 9/11 whether the official story was true or not.

Ummm...jackass...you said that even if the official story were true. So "if the official story is true" then we are better off because they are less capable as evidenced by the lack of more recent attacks.



Because they concentrate ON OUR BORDER, that is why it is best for us to stop it AT OUR BORDER.


You just said they were LESS concentrated. Make up your mind.


Maybe we should stop it AT OUR BORDER and not give them an excuse for any of that OR FOR INVADING MORE COUNTRIES.

So when we were invited to help the British stop the Germans in France in World War I that was an "invasion" of France in your eyes. Got it.

[Swordsmyth]

Ummm...jackass...you said that even if the official story were true. So "if the official story is true" then we are better off because they are less capable as evidenced by the lack of more recent attacks.
No, they are just as capable and they would be if the official story was true, that is part of the ocean of evidence that proves the official story is false.

Your sophomoric tricks avail you nothing.




You just said they were LESS concentrated. Make up your mind.
Where they originate they are but by the definition of their goal they must concentrate somewhat at our border.




So when we were invited to help the British stop the Germans in France in World War I that was an "invasion" of France in your eyes. Got it.
LOL

You undermine yourself, I will fix your argument and then demolish it:


So when we were invited to help the French stop the Germans in France in World War I that was an "invasion" of France in your eyes. Got it.

Notice the difference?


Now to demolish that argument:

The countries you want us to invade do not want us to occupy them or stop the migrant invasion.
If they did then going there would not be an invasion but it would still be a wasteful and futile case of Nation Building.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing that you wrote actually changes anything I said. My history is 100% correct. We mobilized state side and outside the United States. Same thing post 9/11. After 9/11, Dr. Paul, Mr. "non interventionist" himself voted to send troops INTO AFGHANISTAN in order to prevent another attack on the United States. If he were in congress and there was a real invasion coming up through Mexico, i.e. Chinese troops and tanks, he wouldn't sit on his butt the invasion to reach the border. I respect you A.F., but you aren't being logical this time.

Sorry about that, the thread devolved into hollering and name calling and I backed out of it.

I think this smacks all too much of "We have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

But that said, I'm not totally opposed to engaging in some form of combined action with Mexico on this.

Right now nothing is being done, for all intents and purposes, so I'm willing to consider anything.