Hmm. That's a thinker. Resign my post? Commit suicide? Rise up against the system of oppression of which I am a part?
No, you twonk, they haven't. Trump has shut the legal entry points. That is a violation of international treaties regarding asylum seekers.
Not exactly. The way I understand it, the Border Patrol temporarily shut down the port of entry in response to the dust up. They didn't stop accepting asylum seekers, they just delayed them temporarily. Trump can't stop the asylum seekers from coming to the port of entry, but he can sure as hell slow them down. On the one hand, the Trump admin says all asylum seekers must come through the ports of entry, and then on the other hand, he tells the Border Patrol to throttle back on the amount of people they process, causing a back log. So there were already a couple of thousand asylum seekers that didn't have anything to do with the caravan that have been waiting at the San Ysidro Port of Entry for so long that they had their own queue system set up to keep track of who's turn it is to go in. The Caravan shows up with three or four thousand more people to find that there is already a months long line to get in. A bunch of them start protesting, the Federales show up, some people slip by them and get caught trying to climb a fence illegally, and tear gas was deployed. The wind blew the tear gas up to a mile away and caught the women and children who weren't anywhere near the fence...more people get pissed, rocks are thrown, rocks bounce harmlessly off of body armor, more tear gas is deployed, chaos ensues, and the port of entry gets shut down temporarily. If you ask me, this all plays right into Trump's hands. I may be wrong, but I don't see children getting caught in some tear gas gaining as much traction as children being separated from their parents did.
I think he's saying that our foreign policy is at least partially to blame for the Northern Triangle being the "shit hole" that it is. Additionally, gangs like MS-13 were started in the US...not El Salvadore as Trump would have you believe.
Every regime probably was corrupt to some extent but few, if any, showed the warning signs this one does and none of them had a POTUS demanding there be troops shooting people at the border fro throwing rocks. They were throwing rocks, of course, after being illegally denied due process....... I'm really not sure it would matter much to me if they did. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the babies throwing the rocks And yet you kept supporting that line right through the gun registration thread. And that helps here how? Those women and children needed to be brutalised because Mexican drug cartels not only got their weapons from the US but their custom too?
Your nation should give you award you their highest honor for never enlisting in the military - no doubt you saved countless lives by this decision.
oh, I thought you meant "illegal instructions" as in using non-lethal force to deter a mob of border busters.
Trump can't stop the asylum seekers from coming to the port of entry, but he can sure as hell slow them down. On the one hand, the Trump admin says all asylum seekers must come through the ports of entry, and then on the other hand, he tells the Border Patrol to throttle back on the amount of people they process, causing a back log. So there were already a couple of thousand asylum seekers that didn't have anything to do with the caravan that have been waiting at the San Ysidro Port of Entry for so long that they had their own queue system set up to keep track of who's turn it is to go in. The Caravan shows up with three or four thousand more people to find that there is already a months long line to get in. A bunch of them start protesting, the Federales show up, some people slip by them and get caught trying to climb a fence illegally, and tear gas was deployed. The wind blew the tear gas up to a mile away and caught the women and children who weren't anywhere near the fence...more people get pissed, rocks are thrown, rocks bounce harmlessly off of body armor, more tear gas is deployed, chaos ensues, and the port of entry gets shut down temporarily. MAOHS great summation but you're never going to sell tickets to the truth! Every regime probably was corrupt to some extent but few, if any, showed the warning signs this one does and none of them had a POTUS demanding there be troops shooting people at the border fro throwing rocks. - spot Unless I missed something in the past 10 minutes since getting out of my car where I was listening to the news......please tell me when Trump demanded that troops shoot people for throwing rocks. For one "the troops" aren't directly interacting with the caravan members. The border agents used non-lethal means (tear gas) just like they are equipped & authorized to do, and have done in the past. Where the fuck are you getting your information?
“They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back,” the president said. “We’ll consider — and I told them — consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military and police, I say consider it a rifle.” He couldn't have been more fucking obvious but Mattis was quick to come out and say that the troops would NOT be armed with lethal weaponry, and Trump later had to make this U-turn: "They won't have to fire," Trump said, referring to the military's response to the hypothetical rock throwing. "What I don't want is I don't want people throwing rocks. It's turned out, in fact, it was just announced by (the Department of) Homeland Security, you have in just certain areas over 300 people that they know are trouble. What they did to Mexican military is disgrace." "They were throwing rocks in their face. They do that with us, they're going to be arrested. There's going to be a problem. I didn't say shoot," he said. "They do that with us they're going to be arrested for a very long time." Yeah, he knows he meant shoot. Like his "maybe the 2nd Amendment folk can do something" bit during the campaign. You'd have to be blind, stupid or heavily medicated/intoxicated to buy his excuse. But hey, from the evidence you may well be all three or even four.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-troops-should-shoot-migrants-who-throw-rocks/ https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...k-throwers-border-id-call-pretty-tough/221977
To be fair here, not every country venerates it's military the way you guys do, it's a cultural difference.
Venerating the military and being (by his border agent remarks if he was serious) untrustworthy among your comrades are two different things. If you aren't 100 percent "in it to win in" and committed to mission success who needs you? Thank goodness I could trust everyone in my unit in the sandbox and they could trust me. BTW being a vet I know not to believe half the bravado & shit talking coming from any president. They don't dictate the "nuts & bolts" of how we operate at the lowest levels so we don't take it too seriously. No experienced military member expects any president (unless they themselves have military experience) to know what the fuck they are talking about - it takes years to learn everything about your own specialty let alone an even bigger picture. If they start coming up with nonsense you just "yes sir!" them until they go away, then you go back to doing things the way your unit wants you to do them. They might mean well and give pep talks and whatnot and the 18 year olds might be impressed, but NCO's take it with a grain of salt.
Most Presidents aren’t morons who think Rambo was a documentary and that the military only exist to serve out his twisted form of justice on a global scale. He thinks using nukes in the Middle East in a good idea.
I do get the need for trust amongst comrades in dangerous or violent jobs, you literally put your life in each other's hand and it's not something appreciated by people in lines of work which don't involve that level of interpersonal dependence. Nonetheless the Milgram studies showed us the dangers of blind obedience to authority and most professional militaries tend to involve a certain degree of ethics training in their syllabus. I get you want people to have your back, but surely you also want them thinking rationally and critically about their actions where time and space permits. At the end of the "grunts" may not have the big picture but they are still the ones pulling the trigger and deciding if another human being lives or dies. Of course, but time and again history has shown us how charismatic civilian leaders can alter the ethos of military operations in relatively short time and the mood of the populace they are drawn from even quicker, especially when people are put in high stress situations. You know this yourself, I'm not going to ask you about your own experiences, nor am I going to dwell on the legalities of Iraq or Afghanistan here, but I am going to ask you to seriously consider whether you are genuinely not aware of instances where people have made very poor choices or lost self control in combat. The best trained human being in the world is still a human being and fallible and any process which eliminates that fallibility is essentially just doing someone psychological damage. That the Pentagon distanced themselves from his position and were seemingly more aware of the legalities is very much to their credit but there are never guarantees going forward, both human nature and history teach us there's no such thing as a military which is immune to ideological corruption or military personnel who are 100% reliably beyond all possible reproach in difficult situations.
Where I am not thrilled with teargassing little kids, I have to wonder what you are supposed to do. From what I know of crowds trying to get in somewhere and fences and walls blocking their way it often leads to crushing and trampling. If you leave the people to push on the fence and the fence does not give the people in the front get broken bones and killed from the force if the back decides to push. If part of the fence breaks the people at the opening get trampled and pushed especially if they are small and easily knocked over like children. The people in the back push towards the opening and don't hear the cries for help and might even be pushing to save themselves from the wave of impenetrable people behind them. The US did not have control of the Mexican side of the fence to try other methods to disperse the crowds, and the Mexican authorities were not doing enough to keep the crowds back. Letting the fence fall means trampling deaths. Leaving the fence up might have also meant crushing deaths. You cannot even open the fence because the people who see that will push towards the holes and trample people. Most non lethal tools are individual and many cause a person to fall which means they are immediately in danger of being stepped on and you have no way to pull them to safety through the fence. The only method to push people back and to slow them up is gas. If the gas is coming from one direction you move the other. Yes there is still a chance of trampling, but the crowd is moving out in all directions instead of towards a singular point and is less impeded by obstacles like the fence. does anyone have any better ideas since not gasping could lead to more serious injuries and more death. I was not there and I don't know if this was an act of maliciousness or a necessary evil. However, I could see making the point of gassing in some circumstances. It is a bad situation, but as for a US solution we should open up some asylum application areas away from the fence and process the legitimate people away from the crowds trying to crash the fence. Then if we are going to let them in get a bus or two to shuttle them through at a better point. That also means opening up for legal asylum seekers to immigrate properly. I really have no problem with asylum and legal immigration so we can get legalized tax paying members of our communities.
