Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 10/11/2007 5:04:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 5:17:51 PM EST by Dave_A]
Just something to think about....

First, some premises (Reading Comprehension Challenged folks TAKE NOTE):

Premise (1): This thread is about border security as a response to TERRORISM AND FOREIGN THREATS.

Premise (2): THIS IS NOT ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Premise (3): I oppose illegal immigration

Premise (4): I oppose the methods described in this thread, but am pointing them out to illustrate what a 'Fortress America'/'Border Security IS our national defense' world would be like!

Lately, as Ron gets more and more rabid with his anti-military/anti-war rants, I hear more and more Paul-fans spouting off that 'border security' is the answer to the terror threat...

Basically, they think that if we 'lock down the borders' we will be safe from all foreign threats, and won't need an active overseas military presence...

When I hear this, I don't think they realize what they are advocating....

You see, in reality this produces the ULTIMATE POLICE STATE FROM HELL...

Why?

Because in order to do this, here's what must be done:

1) Suspend all general aviation flights (flights by aircraft not registered as commercial air carriers with the US government) into the US regardless of point of origin. Have the USAF scramble fighters to turn around any private/civil aircraft attempting to enter US airspace, or escort them to a military base for arrest if unable to return to their country of origin....

2) Subject passengers leaving all international airports to biometric screening and random searches. Surround all international airports with razor-wire & armed guards.... After all it is through international airports, not the Mexican border, that terrorists tend to come here

3) Post troops along the Mexican AND Canadian borders (requiring a force basically the size of the entire active-duty Army and Marine Corps), and conduct random security checkpoints along ALL border roads (ala DUI checkpoints)....

4) Set up a naval exclusion zone along all coasts, prohibiting/intercepting all unregistered & non-commercial sea traffic.... Search all commercial vessels for stow-aways and terrorist WMD....

5) Operate security stations and random checkpoints along ALL coastal roads....


That's what it would take... There's your 'Borders secured for National Defense'...

One hell of a 'Big Brother' operation, eh?

Do you really think Paul would do something like this?

Personally, I don't think he would - it would violate his beliefs about smaller government, etc... I believe he'd destroy our offensive response via his bring-the-troops-home position, and then continue the status quo (possibly with a cop-out to the 'Mexicans are worse than terrorists' crowd) as far as our ability to stop foreign terrorists...

I don't want to live in a police state... I don't want to live in a nation that hides behind it's borders & depends on draconian security measures for it's national security - especially when it has the military power to secure itself through OFFENSIVE, rather than DEFENSIVE action....

So we have police state on one hand, and war overseas on the other...

War seems a much better alternative for the freedoms of the American people...

P.S. It's ironic that the lock-the-borders-down folks are also quick to scream 'Police State' whenever an illegal-immigration opponent suggests national ID and employment enforcement will stop illegal immigration...

Yet their 'way', done to the extent where it would actually WORK, would result int he biggest police-state the US has ever had!!!!!



Link Posted: 10/11/2007 5:05:51 PM EST
Last time I checked it was the hardcore Republicans who want the fence.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 5:37:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 5:37:24 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By wasnme:
1) Suspend all general aviation flights (flights by aircraft not registered as commercial air carriers with the US government) into the US regardless of point of origin. Have the USAF scramble fighters to turn around any private/civil aircraft attempting to enter US airspace, or escort them to a military base for arrest if unable to return to their country of origin....


Uhhh,if we don't already know your coming this is the kind of reaction I would expect.

For 'Fortress America' to work we would have to totally BAN international GA... Private planes can land on roadways, in fields, in the desert, and at unattended airstrips, you know....

And we do NOT already do that, btw


2) Subject passengers leaving all international airports to biometric screening and random searches. Surround all international airports with razor-wire & armed guards.... After all it is through international airports, not the Mexican border, that terrorists tend to come here

Why would we be screening people leaving? If your not a US citizen,you should be put through the wringer upon arrival.

Upon leaving the airport for the outside world, not on getting back on the plane

3) Post troops along the Mexican AND Canadian borders (requiring a force basically the size of the entire active-duty Army and Marine Corps), and conduct random security checkpoints along ALL border roads (ala DUI checkpoints)....

They already do this. Not to the level required for 'Fortress America'...

5) Set up a naval exclusion zone along all coasts, prohibiting/intercepting all unregistered & non-commercial sea traffic.... Search all commercial vessels for stow-aways and terrorist WMD....

Expected, WTF do we pay the coast GUARD to do? We presently do not have them cut off all non-commercial sea traffic, and search every single ship... It is still possible to enter the USA from overseas by boat all up and down BOTH coasts and throughout the gulf

4) Operate security stations and random checkpoints along ALL coastal roads....

not needed if everyone else is doing thier job. But we are talking about securing EVERYTHING so that we don't need an overseas military presence, remember??? So since the naval patrols can't be everywhere, they'd have to do this just in case...


So I guess the real argument your making is that we are already living in a police state and should be activley revolting against the unconstitutional police powers being forced onto us?

No, we are not...

We are living in a nation that derives it's security from offensive war overseas...

Not one which relies on defensive security measures to keep the 'evil foreigners' out....

To operate in pure-defense mode, we are talking about a real police state - a security crackdown of a scale you apparently can't immagine, because you are thinking the present almost-no-security system 'does it'....


Not that I really disagree persay.

BTW if you are within 100 miles of a point of entry (border crossing,international airport,ect.) your already subject to search by federal authorities.And it's been this way since long before 9-11.

And how many people are searched? Remember, in the paulbot wet dream, we have to stop all the bad guys at the border, because we can't do it overseas (as that is 'wrong' and 'makes people hate us')....

They don't need new tools,they need to start using the ones they already have.
And if we wern't busy being the offficial policmen for the UN,we wouldn't need anywhere near the overseas presence we have.Thus giving us the manpower we need to secure our borders.And maybe,just maybe, we wouldn't piss off so many other nations.

Small problem with that - we aren't pissing off nations, we're pissing off stateless terrorist groups bent on taking over nations that supply us with oil

And while we are at it, we need to start doing more fighting,and less winning the hearts and minds crap, noone will terrorise us if they know we will carpet bomb thier entire nation into a parking lot.I could care less who the next ruler of Iraq is,as long as they stay off my turf.If they don't, we reorganise thier genepool again,till they get it right.

Doesn't work at all... Period...

That's how Al Queda fights...

Because Al Queda fights this way, they are not only facing US and Iraqi government forces, but a metric shit-ton of angry armed civillians....

You don't win a 4GW/COIN battle with carpet bombing... You win it by convincing the locals to grab their guns and join your side... Which is what we have done in Iraq over the last few months....

Oh, and doing it the right way (the way we are doing it) produces an environment that prevents Al Queda from accomplishing their goal of politically taking over the Middle East



Cheap,and effective.with 75% less griping about long wars.

Ineffective, useless, and garanteed to cause us to fail if we did it... Not to mention 100% illegal under LOAC and the US Constitution

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:17:11 PM EST
I thought he said we would just trade with enemy regimes like Iran. Then everyone would love us and we wouldn't need the .mil or FBI even.


Did he not say that ? Is that not the Libertarian way ? Open and free trade with all and non-intervention ?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 7:24:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 7:25:07 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By agreendale:
i didn't realize all cross-atlantic flights went through the states.


Why land somewhere else, when you can just land here, show your (real, fraudulently obtained, or fake) visa/passport, and walk right in?

Especially when if you land somewhere else, you have to sneak into the US over hostile terrain, avoiding foreign and US criminals AND law enforcement....

They are not stupid....
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 7:26:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By weptek911:
I thought he said we would just trade with enemy regimes like Iran. Then everyone would love us and we wouldn't need the .mil or FBI even.


Did he not say that ? Is that not the Libertarian way ? Open and free trade with all and non-intervention ?


That is one line (along with 'We are responsible for 9/11')...

The other line is 'Ohh, border security will protect us'....

I'm just pointing out what that would really look like...
Top Top