‘Foreign Invasion’ – Will US Military Confront Migrants At Border?

[Ender]

[Swordsmyth]

Ron is too soft, this is a military problem when they come in these numbers and even if you disagree we must use the military because the BP is too small and it will take too long to grow it even if Congress supplies the funding needed to grow it large enough.

[jmdrake]

Ron is too soft, this is a military problem when they come in these numbers and even if you disagree we must use the military because the BP is too small and it will take too long to grow it even if Congress supplies the funding needed to grow it large enough.

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

[CCTelander]

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

You can't expect rationality or consistency from people who are reacting from strong, negative emotional states. Unfortunately, this place has been whipped up into a big frothy emotionally driven frenzy by a handful of extremely prolific posters who have been relentlessly spamming RPFs with Big Lie propaganda and other one-sided, divisive, hateful bull$#@! for well over two years now.

To be sure there are a few who still remain open to at least considering other points of view when presented by people they respect and consider to be reasonable, but there just aren't enough of those level-headed individuals left to make any real progress cutting through the constant drone of partisan hackery and various and sundry other bull$#@! propaganda. They've mostly been chased off by the bad actors mentioned above. If this situation doesn't change, I seriously doubt that RPF will even exist in another 5 years.

[jmdrake]

You can't expect rationality or consistency from people who are reacting from strong, negative emotional states. Unfortunately, this place has been whipped up into a big frothy emotionally driven frenzy by a handful of extremely prolific posters who have been relentlessly spamming RPFs with Big Lie propaganda and other one-sided, divisive, hateful bull$#@! for well over two years now.

To be sure there are a few who still remain open to at least considering other points of view when presented by people they respect and consider to be reasonable, but there just aren't enough of those level-headed individuals left to make any real progress cutting through the constant drone of partisan hackery and various and sundry other bull$#@! propaganda. They've mostly been chased off by the bad actors mentioned above. If this situation doesn't change, I seriously doubt that RPF will even exist in another 5 years.

Oh it will exist. Some people need the "RP" part to have some sense of legitimacy even as they drift further and further away from the principles of the man bearing the name.

[angelatc]

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

You didn't address the concerns we voiced. These people literally destroyed the processing stations Mexico set up. If you do not want to stop them with force, how do you propose we stop them?

[angelatc]

Oh it will exist. Some people need the "RP" part to have some sense of legitimacy even as they drift further and further away from the principles of the man bearing the name.

That's because we're free thinkers and not cult members.

[jmdrake]

You didn't address the concerns we voiced. These people literally destroyed the processing stations Mexico set up. If you do not want to stop them with force, how do you propose we stop them?

You didn't read carefully enough. I have said more than once that I am not against a military response. (Makes me less open borders than RP which is funny because you in your silliness through "Ron Paul is not for open borders" in my face.) I just draw the line at killing unarmed kids. Other people here do not. They have made that clear. "If you rule out killing any group of people then they can be used as shields." That is an argument that has been advanced here.

[jmdrake]

That's because we're free thinkers and not cult members.

Then quit saying "Ron Paul this" and "Ron Paul that" when it suits you. Seriously, I have taken a position that is less open borders than Ron Paul and your response was "Ron Paul is not for open borders."

[angelatc]

You can't expect rationality or consistency from people who are reacting from strong, negative emotional states. Unfortunately, this place has been whipped up into a big frothy emotionally driven frenzy by a handful of extremely prolific posters who have been relentlessly spamming RPFs with Big Lie propaganda and other one-sided, divisive, hateful bull$#@! for well over two years now.

Anybody who does not support open borders is not rational?

And you've been here long enough to know that this issue has always been one of the most divisive on the forums. I already know the position of the anarchists, and Ron Paul. But Ron Paul has repeatedly said that we cannot have a country without borders.

Our UN treaty does not list poverty as a reason to apply for asylum.

[angelatc]

Then quit saying "Ron Paul this" and "Ron Paul that" when it suits you. Seriously, I have taken a position that is less open borders than Ron Paul and your response was "Ron Paul is not for open borders."

Ron Paul's position seems to indicate he does not support open borders, as he clearly states he would have them sit down and apply for asylum.

So answer the other question: They've already destroyed the intake stations that Mexico set up. If they do that on our border, what should the response be?

[jmdrake]

Anybody who does not support open borders is not rational?

And you've been here long enough to know that this issue has always been one of the most divisive on the forums. I already know the position of the anarchists, and Ron Paul. But Ron Paul has repeatedly said that we cannot have a country without borders.

Our UN treaty does not list poverty as a reason to apply for asylum.

LOL. Did you even watch the video in the OP? @CCTelander didn't say people who don't support open borders are not rational. What's irrational is your attack on people who take a less open borders position than what Ron takes. Ron rejected the idea that this latest caravan is an invasion. At 14:45 Ron addresses Trump's plan to send the military. Ron brings up the Kent State issue and "kids got killed" and goes on to say that's not a solution he would endorse.

[jmdrake]

You didn't read carefully enough. I have said more than once that I am not against a military response. (Makes me less open borders than RP which is funny because you in your silliness through "Ron Paul is not for open borders" in my face.) I just draw the line at killing unarmed kids. Other people here do not. They have made that clear. "If you rule out killing any group of people then they can be used as shields." That is an argument that has been advanced here.

Ron Paul's position seems to indicate he does not support open borders, as he clearly states he would have them sit down and apply for asylum.

So answer the other question: They've already destroyed the intake stations that Mexico set up. If they do that on our border, what should the response be?

How many times do I have to repeat myself until it sinks into your brain? I'm not against a military response that has rules of engagement which don't include killing unarmed kids. Is that so hard for you to understand? Sheesh...I just said it to you!

Edit: And last count this caravan is over 40 days out. They are having to make multiple stops along the way. A common sense approach would be to send agents into Mexico to process asylum seekers there. If by the time the caravan reaches the Mexico border all of the women and children are siphoned off from it there's no potential propaganda bonanza for whatever happens next.

[angelatc]

tack on people who take a less open borders position than what Ron takes. Ron rejected the idea that this latest caravan is an invasion. At 14:45 Ron addresses Trump's plan to send the military. Ron brings up the Kent State issue and "kids got killed" and goes on to say that's not a solution he would endorse.

We get that. What we don't have is an alternate solution that we feel is viable.

[phill4paul]

How many times do I have to repeat myself until it sinks into your brain? I'm not against a military response that has rules of engagement which don't include killing unarmed kids. Is that so hard for you to understand? Sheesh...I just said it to you!

What exactly do you propose. Answer angelatc's question? Water cannons? Oh, noes. Can you imagine the outrage of an innocent 3yr. old blasted? CS gas? What about a 5 yr. old with asthma?

People already go ape $#@! if they are even detained. So what exactly is your solution when they crash the barriers?

[angelatc]

How many times do I have to repeat myself until it sinks into your brain? I'm not against a military response that has rules of engagement which don't include killing unarmed kids. Is that so hard for you to understand? Sheesh...I just said it to you!

What form of military engagement would you endorse? Rubber bullets? Tear gas? Dogs? Dropping strongly worded pamphlets?

[jmdrake]

What form of military engagement would you endorse? Rubber bullets? Tear gas? Dogs? Dropping strongly worded pamphlets?

I already said "Rules of engagement where you don't purposefully kill unarmed kids." Are you just too dense to process plain English?

[jmdrake]

What exactly do you propose. Answer angelatc's question? Water cannons? Oh, noes. Can you imagine the outrage of an innocent 3yr. old blasted? CS gas? What about a 5 yr. old with asthma?

People already go ape $#@! if they are even detained. So what exactly is your solution when they crash the barriers?

I answered it. And I really don't even know why you're on this forum but anyway. You were the one that raised the "Can't I shoot the children" scenario in the first place. The answer is no. A thousand times no. You didn't say "Well can I use water cannons or tear gas or whatever." It was "Shouldn't I have the right to shoot (to kill) trespassers." So quit trying to dishonestly fix it up on the back end.

[phill4paul]

I answered it. And I really don't even know why you're on this forum but anyway. You were the one that raised the "Can't I shoot the children" scenario in the first place. The answer is no. A thousand times no. You didn't say "Well can I use water cannons or tear gas or whatever." It was "Shouldn't I have the right to shoot (to kill) trespassers." So quit trying to dishonestly fix it up on the back end.

And still you give no answer.

[jmdrake]

And still you give no answer.

And still you are too stupid to understand the answer already given.

[phill4paul]

And still you are too stupid to understand the answer already given.

Enough of the "you're stupid," "you don't belong here," bull$#@!. Answer the damned question. When they break the barrier what "rules of engagement" are allowable?

[angelatc]

I already said "Rules of engagement where you don't purposefully kill unarmed kids."

Is there a precedent for those protocols? I think "purposely" gums up the argument for me, so I'm just trying to determine where you draw the line at what line of defense our troops should be permitted.

My husband says a single line with extended bayonets would be acceptable. Do you agree with that - if you do not want to die, do not walk into a bayonet?

If you do, what happens when the people in the rear inevitably push the people in the front into the extended weapons?

[Ender]

How many times do I have to repeat myself until it sinks into your brain? I'm not against a military response that has rules of engagement which don't include killing unarmed kids. Is that so hard for you to understand? Sheesh...I just said it to you!

Edit: And last count this caravan is over 40 days out. They are having to make multiple stops along the way. A common sense approach would be to send agents into Mexico to process asylum seekers there. If by the time the caravan reaches the Mexico border all of the women and children are siphoned off from it there's no potential propaganda bonanza for whatever happens next.

^^^THIS^^^

If this was done, almost everything could be taken care of before the migrants got anywhere close to the US border.

[Ender]

Is there a precedent for those protocols? I think "purposely" gums up the argument for me, so I'm just trying to determine where you draw the line at what line of defense our troops should be permitted.

My husband says a single line with extended bayonets would be acceptable. Do you agree with that - if you do not want to die, do not walk into a bayonet?

If you do, what happens when the people in the rear inevitably push the people in the front into the extended weapons?

Rules of engagement (ROE), military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used, and they have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare.

[angelatc]

^^^THIS^^^

If this was done, almost everything could be taken care of before the migrants got anywhere close to the US border.

The laws state they have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, but they have refused en masse. Now what?

[jmdrake]

Enough of the "you're stupid," "you don't belong here," bull$#@!. Answer the damned question. When they break the barrier what "rules of engagement" are allowable?

Enough of you being a dumbass and not reading. I already said rules of engagement where you're not allowed to purposefully kill unarmed kids. And if you don't understand what that means then yes. You are stupid.

[jmdrake]

Is there a precedent for those protocols? I think "purposely" gums up the argument for me, so I'm just trying to determine where you draw the line at what line of defense our troops should be permitted.

My husband says a single line with extended bayonets would be acceptable. Do you agree with that - if you do not want to die, do not walk into a bayonet?

If you do, what happens when the people in the rear inevitably push the people in the front into the extended weapons?

Well your husbands solution is easily overcome.



OMG! A kid was thrown over our bayonets. Oh whatever will we do? It is the end of 'Meriku! If only we had been able to just shoot the little fvckers!

[thoughtomator]

They should mow down every single person who illegally crosses the border.

The least harm long term solution is if all of Central America understands that attempting to storm the US border is CERTAIN DEATH.

The ONLY reason they are trying this crap now is that they know for sure they will be treated with kid gloves and be able, for at least a time, to live rich off the US welfare state.

[jmdrake]

Rules of engagement (ROE), military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used, and they have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ender again.

[jmdrake]

The ONLY reason they are trying this crap now is that they know for sure they will be treated with kid gloves and be able, for at least a time, to live rich off the US welfare state.

Yeah. Because we all know that Trump is softer on illegal immigrants than Obama, Bush, Clinton etc.