The Political Discussion Thread

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

I would feel uncomfortable with soldiers used in law enforcement as they seem like two different roles.

My mum is from N. Ireland and went on 'holiday' to N. Ireland all through the 'troubles' so has experience dealing with the military as a Civilian. Nothing bad happened to her but one mistake at a checkpoint and it's game over. The military probably could handle it but soldiers have a different mindset and might do something that trained police officer would never do.

[Snookie16]

I say yes. There are many service members who are reserve or national guard and are in local law enforcement where they live.

There are many here who do the same. I have no problem with any (LEGAL) jobs that Nation Guard members do - but (as we still need to get certain factions of our gov't to understand) there is a huge difference between WAR and Criminal behavior! Acts of war should be prosecuted as such, not as "criminal matters". This is one problem I have with the US military being stationed on the US-Mexico border--- the gov't treats it as a "criminal matter" not as an "invasion" so the poor soldiers are given no clear set of orders or rules for dealing with the situations found there.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

I would feel uncomfortable with soldiers used in law enforcement as they seem like two different roles.

My mum is from N. Ireland and went on 'holiday' to N. Ireland all through the 'troubles' so has experience dealing with the military as a Civilian. Nothing bad happened to her but one mistake at a checkpoint and it's game over. The military probably could handle it but soldiers have a different mindset and might do something that trained police officer would never do.

In Northern Ireland the situation was dangerous enough that it required troops, however because it was a low intensity conflict, the deployment of troops, while necessary for security, created problems as well, since the troops had to use a lot of force.

People shouldn't be afraid of their police force, nor their military but they are designed to do a very different job. Even SWAT teams, and groups like CO19 here in the UK, have nothing on military force. You apply it to threats that require it. Using the military as a police force then is either a last resort in times of great unrest or a slide into tyranny, either way it's not a good thing.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

There are many here who do the same. I have no problem with any (LEGAL) jobs that Nation Guard members do - but (as we still need to get certain factions of our gov't to understand) there is a huge difference between WAR and Criminal behavior! Acts of war should be prosecuted as such, not as "criminal matters". This is one problem I have with the US military being stationed on the US-Mexico border--- the gov't treats it as a "criminal matter" not as an "invasion" so the poor soldiers are given no clear set of orders or rules for dealing with the situations found there.

With the bolded, I find I am in complete agreement with you: There should be a stark dividing line between war and crime. Of course, as you move on, I find that I disagree with you (imagine that ). As much as it gets bandied about, people crossing the border isn't an "invasion" in the war sense, and committing an act of war with Mexico by shooting her citizens? No.

Continue to address it as a criminal matter and go after those who make money off them IN THE US for hiring them. You want it stopped, stop it there.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

With the bolded, I find I am in complete agreement with you: There should be a stark dividing line between war and crime. Of course, as you move on, I find that I disagree with you (imagine that ). As much as it gets bandied about, people crossing the border isn't an "invasion" in the war sense, and committing an act of war with Mexico by shooting her citizens? No.

Continue to address it as a criminal matter and go after those who make money off them IN THE US for hiring them. You want it stopped, stop it there.

Hands up who wants an open border with an country that's in the middle of a civil war? Anybody? Mexico is tearing itself apart, Mexico has suffered nearly 40,000 deaths in the last 3 years from fighting the Cartels. For comparison in Afghanistan, total deaths on all sides, including civilians comes to about 85,000 from 9 and half years of fighting. It's not a criminal matter, the U.S border with Mexico is a border with a warzone, a warzone that is more intense than Afghanistan. The smart thing to do is to control it, there needs to be a heavy military presence, control over who's coming, refugee camps set up to control those trying to escape the fighting, identify whose coming and going.

The fact is though that Obama ignores the problem because he's terrified of it. A war on his doorstep, the idea of refugee camps, military intervention possibly, well he really doesn't want that. So he's chosen to stick his fingers in his ears and hope it goes away. While ignoring the fact that violent civil wars can spill over into neighbouring countries and there can be major problems when there are mass movements of refugees. The border issue with Mexico has nothing to do with immigration (though I'm sure there are a few groups who would like it closed permanently whatever the situation) and everything to do with securing a border into a warzone.

[jmoz]

They don't have to become top notch detectives. There are other roles in the police, financial analysts, clerical workers, records keeping, crime scene, I could go on. They would be acquiring another alternative skillset if they should decide to quit the military.

And what do the military train for? A war? Do those even happen anymore? No, they're more scaled down military actions, more detached technology based. There really isn't a full-scale war happening anytime soon. Today's wars are more cultural and economical. Sure, some constantly trained armed forces are necessary, but so much spending for maintaining a large military training them for something that really isn't going to happen.

Personally, I think that their time is better spent policing the streets, improving the quality of life (doesn't just have to be policing) rather than training for things that aren't really going to happen. I mean this way, they would be actually getting something done rather than maintaining military numbers for some potential thing when modern warfare doesn't really rely on military numbers.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Hands up who wants an open border with an country that's in the middle of a civil war? Anybody? Mexico is tearing itself apart, Mexico has suffered nearly 40,000 deaths in the last 3 years from fighting the Cartels. For comparison in Afghanistan, total deaths on all sides, including civilians comes to about 85,000 from 9 and half years of fighting. It's not a criminal matter, the U.S border with Mexico is a border with a warzone, a warzone that is more intense than Afghanistan. The smart thing to do is to control it, there needs to be a heavy military presence, control over who's coming, refugee camps set up to control those trying to escape the fighting, identify whose coming and going.

The fact is though that Obama ignores the problem because he's terrified of it. A war on his doorstep, the idea of refugee camps, military intervention possibly, well he really doesn't want that. So he's chosen to stick his fingers in his ears and hope it goes away. While ignoring the fact that violent civil wars can spill over into neighbouring countries and there can be major problems when there are mass movements of refugees. The border issue with Mexico has nothing to do with immigration (though I'm sure there are a few groups who would like it closed permanently whatever the situation) and everything to do with securing a border into a warzone.

who said anything about an open border? I know I didn't.

Of course you're right about the Cartels, which may be why starting an actual war with Mexico might not be the smartest way to go about it. I know it makes for great sloganeering to have a bunch of chairborne rangers talk about how the US should be at war with Mexico because of a handful of people crossing the border to get jobs (that US citizens give them) in the US, but the flip side of that is that declaring war on Mexico means that that civil war may very well spill the border (for real this time, as opposed to the panicked, hysteria-driven propaganda stories we get about the cartels invading El Paso and such.

As for Obama's fear, he's not alone there. Every US president before him - aside from maybe Polk - has chosen to do the same thing. I guess it makes a lovely propaganda point to say it's just Obama though. Or did Mexicans only start crossing the border since he was president?

[Giantevilhead]

NGO's are having trouble in this area because they're not being given a chance....the minute a problem crops up the government immediately swoops in to confiscate taxpayer funds before even giving the private sector a chance to address the problem

What about charities that do not rely on taxpayer funds? They haven't been successful either.

As for the government cutting funds when problems crop up, a lot of times that's justified. Outbreaks of infectious diseases in homeless shelters are pretty common. With a lot of shelters, sleeping there for the night can actually increase a person's chance of getting tuberculosis.

Not to mention the fact that deinstitutionalization, the closing of government mental care institutions, was a major cause of the homeless problem. The whole thing started in the 50's and 60's but really picked up steam with Reagan. Unfortunately, Reagan wasn't able to set up a system to replace those mean old government run institutions and as a result, there are at least 400,000 mentally ill people who are now either homeless or in jail who would have been put in one of those old government run mental care facilities.

[mad_gater]

not in Catholic Charities....the hospitals in the Catholic Health System are top-notch.......if the taxpayers could keep more of their money they could donate enough to Catholic Charities and they'd be able to provide basic health care to the needy at little or no cost

[mad_gater]

and Catholic Charities has been very successful in helping the needy....if it's one thing us Catholics do well it's charity

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

They don't have to become top notch detectives. There are other roles in the police, financial analysts, clerical workers, records keeping, crime scene, I could go on. They would be acquiring another alternative skillset if they should decide to quit the military.

And what do the military train for? A war? Do those even happen anymore? No, they're more scaled down military actions, more detached technology based. There really isn't a full-scale war happening anytime soon. Today's wars are more cultural and economical. Sure, some constantly trained armed forces are necessary, but so much spending for maintaining a large military training them for something that really isn't going to happen.

Personally, I think that their time is better spent policing the streets, improving the quality of life (doesn't just have to be policing) rather than training for things that aren't really going to happen. I mean this way, they would be actually getting something done rather than maintaining military numbers for some potential thing when modern warfare doesn't really rely on military numbers.

This is the most staggeringly uninformed post I think I have seen here at Gateworld. Do you not watch the news? Does the world pass you by? Did you miss 85,000 people die in Afghanistan, 600,000 or more in Iraq. Did nearly 6000 American military personnel, more than 600 British troops and several hundred others from various countries as well as thousands of contractors just get tired and keel over? Are over 50,000 wounded personnel from various countries just making it up? I guess when the Royal Anglian and Parachute Regiments experienced the heaviest fighting since World War 2 they were just telling porkies?

What you write is not only uninformed but incredibly insulting. Educate yourself now, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were manpower heavy, they required at the height of troop deployments more than 200,000 coalition troops for the invasion of Iraq and over 130,000 for Afghanistan. These are intense operations. As for there not being likely to be a conventional war, well we had one in 2003, the Invasion of Iraq was an intense war fighting operation, and countries like Iran and North Korea are still out there. Aside from Iran being very anti western they have supplied insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As for North Korea they are still officially at war with SouthKorea, and they have skirmishes every few months. They don't even need nuclear weapons to cause massive damage, the South Korean capital, Seoul is with range of over 8000 North Korean artillery pieces, it is estimated in any conflict, the entire city of Seoul, all 10 million people, would be wiped out in the opening 15 minutes of the war. It is likely that there will be a conflict with one of these nations at some point.

Fighting insurgencies requires huge numbers of troops because large areas have to be held to stop insurgent infiltrating and operating within the local populace. Further the infantryman is the best weapon against insurgents, he is the only one close enough to the enemy to identify who is hostile, predominantly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been infantry wars. In all forms of warfare the infantryman is a key figure, he is most able to identify and kill the enemy and take and hold ground. Experience has shown that an overreliance on technology simply leads to defeat.

You do the men and women who have fought in these wars a great disservice. Please look up some of this stuff before you post on the subject. Try telling these people they aren't fighting in a real war.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

who said anything about an open border? I know I didn't.

Of course you're right about the Cartels, which may be why starting an actual war with Mexico might not be the smartest way to go about it. I know it makes for great sloganeering to have a bunch of chairborne rangers talk about how the US should be at war with Mexico because of a handful of people crossing the border to get jobs (that US citizens give them) in the US, but the flip side of that is that declaring war on Mexico means that that civil war may very well spill the border (for real this time, as opposed to the panicked, hysteria-driven propaganda stories we get about the cartels invading El Paso and such.

As for Obama's fear, he's not alone there. Every US president before him - aside from maybe Polk - has chosen to do the same thing. I guess it makes a lovely propaganda point to say it's just Obama though. Or did Mexicans only start crossing the border since he was president?

Why the hell would anyone declare war on Mexico? It's entirely in the interests of the U.S government for the Mexican government to succeed. But there is a war occurring in Mexico, a war more intense than the one in Afghanistan. And it's a war that hasn't occurred till recently. So yes it is a different situation for Obama, because the previous Presidents just had to deal with Jose crossing the border for some work, a good situation as I'm all for immigration but Obama has to deal with the fact here's a violent civil war going on. It requires him to take a different approach because it is not just an immigration issue but about controlling a battlespace.

We must grasp the fact it's not the same situation in Mexico anymore. The issue is the country is tearing itself apart. There has always been violence in Mexico but this is a major civil war, and one that is being ignored by many. The issue is that there are now thousands of people fleeing North to escape the violence and the U.S has no provisions to deal with these refugees. The issue is that the U.S has weak border controls and doesn't monitor those crossing over, it isn't looking hard enough for arms dealers and drug dealers that are the life blood of the cartels, and finally the issue is that Obama seems not to grasp that it may take U.S troops to shore up the Mexican government and prevent the country from totally collapsing. That's not declaring war on them, that's aiding a friendly government.

[lordofseas]

. Why the hell would anyone declare war on Mexico? It's entirely in the interests of the U.S government for the Mexican government to succeed. But there is a war occurring in Mexico, a war more intense than the one in Afghanistan. And it's a war that hasn't occurred till recently. So yes it is a different situation for Obama, because the previous Presidents just had to deal with Jose crossing the border for some work, Obama has to deal with the fact here's a violent civil war going on. It requires him to take a different approach.

Try to grasp the fact it's not the same situation in Mexico anymore. The issue is the country is tearing itself apart. The issue is that there are now thousands of people fleeing North to escape the violence and the U.S has no provisions to deal with these refugees. The issue is that the U.S has weak border controls and doesn't monitor those crossing over, it isn't looking hard enough for arms dealers and drug dealers that are the life blood of the cartels, and finally the issue is that Obama seems not to grasp that it may take U.S troops to shore up the Mexican government and prevent the country from totally collapsing. That's not declaring war on them, that's aiding a friendly government.

That's not the point, though. The US may have good intentions on helping the Mexican government, but the Mexicans will see it as an invasion, rightfully so, so NAFTA will be completely undermined, and Europe and Canada will be talking about how the Americans are, again, sticking their noses where they were not asked for. The only way that the US could ever go into Mexico, justifiably, would be if the Mexican Government asked the American Government to help. The Mexican people most likely would not like it, but the US would have a justifiable reason for going in.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

. Why the hell would anyone declare war on Mexico? It's entirely in the interests of the U.S government for the Mexican government to succeed. But there is a war occurring in Mexico, a war more intense than the one in Afghanistan. And it's a war that hasn't occurred till recently. So yes it is a different situation for Obama, because the previous Presidents just had to deal with Jose crossing the border for some work, Obama has to deal with the fact here's a violent civil war going on. It requires him to take a different approach.

Try to grasp the fact it's not the same situation in Mexico anymore. The issue is the country is tearing itself apart. The issue is that there are now thousands of people fleeing North to escape the violence and the U.S has no provisions to deal with these refugees. The issue is that the U.S has weak border controls and doesn't monitor those crossing over, it isn't looking hard enough for arms dealers and drug dealers that are the life blood of the cartels, and finally the issue is that Obama seems not to grasp that it may take U.S troops to shore up the Mexican government and prevent the country from totally collapsing. That's not declaring war on them, that's aiding a friendly government.

If you are tackling the border crossing of a few Mexicans as a soldier issue and not a crime issue and that involves shooting at those Mexican nationals, then yeah, you are committing an act of war against Mexico, aren't you? That's what happens when you use soldiers to do the work of police - you make a war out of it. Of course there's a war in Mexico - who claimed there wasn't? You seem to have a habit of that - making claims out of things no one's claimed. The topic at hand was using soldiers to do the work of police. It's as difficult for Obama as it has been for every US pres, save Polk, who didn't mind the war part. I don't need to "try to grasp the fact", being well aware, but thanks for your condescending concern.

[Bagpuss]

This thread is taking a rest to give some of you a little time to edit out the personal insults being thrown around freely,.


A reminder of the opening post :

Since we were/are getting off topic in the "language of the right: does it incite violence" thread, I decided to create a general political discussion thread, where there can be a general discussion of varying political topics...

There are a few rules in this thread!

1. Remain courteous and respectful to others at all times.
2. Do not make personally directed attacks on any other user (for example, it is acceptable to accuse someone of making a "dumb proposition" (i.e.: "that's a terrible idea, <member>, <reasons why>) but it is not acceptable to accuse someone of being "dumb" (i.e.: "How stupid are you?, <member>...).
3. In accordance with GW's rules, all posts must be PG-friendly (i.e. no inappropriate language, etc).
4. Please do not post any hateful or racially, sexually or ethnically objectionable material.
5. Rules for this thread may be modified at the discretion of the GateWorld forum moderators/admins, if they make any such requests.

Notice: If you feel there is a post in this thread that is not in compliance with any of the above rules, please report the said post(s).

Let's begin the discussion!

I'll take another look in an hour .

If the changes I've requested have been made,the thread re-opens .