Nope: oppress /əˈprɛs/ verb 1. keep (someone) in subjection and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority. "a system which oppressed working people" synonyms: persecute, abuse, maltreat, ill-treat, treat harshly, be brutal to, be cruel to, tyrannize, crush, repress, suppress, subjugate, hegemonize, subdue, subject, enslave;
considering the vast majority of the troops won't have actual contact with the refugees and are there to provide mostly logistical support that's not likely. But don't let facts bring you out of the fetal position.
Everything has become a liberal/conservative battle, right down to using the restroom. It is so easy to drum up fear in people, and as a result, the most mundane of things becomes a hill to die upon. So you have to look at motive, as best as you can since it's not generally visible to others. My motives, and no doubt the motives of many people here who are aghast at this, truly are upset because there is the possibility that innocent people may be fired upon. Considering our history, you can't rule it out. What the hell did a few college kids ever do at Kent State to be shot and killed? Not a damned thing, but it happened. Fear makes people do deadly things because they think they have to protect themselves. In this case, the idea is being drummed up that these refugees are an invading horde, and are coming to stampede our women, and rape our cattle. These people are acting on the "but what if" scenario without evidence, and they're willing to put thousands of lives at risk to prevent a what if scenario that shows no indication of actually happening. I really do not want to believe Donald Trump would order troops to fire on refugees. I also do not want to believe that troops would fire on refugees. Unfortunately, our history has shown there are people more than willing to do so, especially in times of rising panic. I do not want people dead. I do not want people to be murderers. I don't have to be liberal or conservative to want this.
Nothing you've just quoted relates to the U.S.'s response to this mob of people. Unjust exercise of authority? We're a sovereign nation, with clearly delineated borders, and we have the right to control and defend those borders. Just because 10,000 people show up doesn't mean we have to let them in. Once again, they're in Mexico, a safe country. They can stay there and start new lives. If you're really wanting to go full SJW and do something about this problem, fly on down to Honduras or wherever they're from, and under the auspices of the Red Cross or some other charitable organization, work with local activists to improve the quality of life for citizens down there. When their country stops being a shithole, the need to cross our borders illegally diminishes. I'll be waiting for you to post pictures from your new life as Savior of Honduras.
"Oppressing them might be too strong a word, it might not, it all depends on what happens when contact is made but the US military doesn't really have a great track record when dealing with disempowered unarmed civilians regardless of nationality." - spot We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I've been deployed downrange a time or two and I can't speak for all US military members but myself & my unit have had to deal with disempowered unarmed civilians countless times and nobody had an itchy trigger finger. Of course you'll never hear about the times when things go smoothly and are as exciting as watching paint dry......only the times when things go south and get bloody. But that's human nature - sex & violence fills seats & sells newspapers in this world.
Drumming up fear in people for partisan advantage? You mean, like how the Left has been screaming for two years that Trump is a Nazi fascist under the control of the Russians who are blackmailing him because there's a pee tape, and that Trump is ushering in a new era of American Totalitarianism where trannies will be erased from existence? Pot, meet kettle.
"Wellp, things are shit here, time to abandon my home country forever." Were I to be a "refugee" I'd be chomping at the bit to return to my home country once things were settled. Refugees are fleeing war or persecution. They are seeking temporary safe haven until things calm down and can return home. These people are neither fleeing war or persecution, and have been given an amazing offer from Mexico and turned it down, save for a few hundred. Not to mention that Mexico has a similar language and culture, making integration into Mexican society far easier.
In a way I hope he does. It would be impossible not to impeach him then. No sorry. It’s not as simple as the first offer. This is a huge life decision. The security of the US is obvious. It’s legal system is mostly far more fair and reliable than that of Mexico. It is a western nation. It has ten strongest economy in the world. It is by far a superior choice for anyone looking for safety and trying to start a new life. When presented with an offer such as Mexico’s a person is being asked to me a key life decision. I asked you to put yourself in their shoes. Clearly you did not. Why did I say it? Because the dehumanising language that you, your ilk and your orange hero engage in seeks to paint a picture of people who are essentially criminals and inferior human beings. You are deciding for them their reasons for migration instead of learning more about why people migrate. What you use or support the use of terms like “invasion” and “infestation”, you are contributing to this dehumanisation. There are multiple reasons why people migrate. Many even have multiple reasons per person. Many who are seeking asylum and/or better life often spend their entire life savings on trying to have something better for themselves and their families. But people like you and your vulgar leader trivialise all this and paint them as nefarious subhumans. But in reality these people are less human than you or your orange cunt in chief.
Mexico would not offer asylum if it didn’t consider them to have qualified for it in line with the Refugee Convention. As for the rest, it’s irrelevant to my overall point and astonishingly stupid. “Wait for it to calm down”. And when is that going to be? Is there a set date? I have NEVER acted for any asylum seeker who did not prefer the idea of living in a safe, prosperous and first world version of their country of origin. That’s in twenty years now and includes people who were quite obviously primarily economic migrants.
Well, thanks, you made oldfella look right, and now I have to apologize to the prick. (To oldfella) I apologize, prick.
Amaris do you have a fucking clue about how large scale military operations work? Whether peacekeeping or invading the scale is immense. Do you know anything about logistics, infrastructure, material procurement, mission planning and so forth? You can't wait until the caravan arrives at the border and then decide to do something about it at the last minute. You don't start up the trucks and aircraft at the nearest military bases and yell "let's go fellas!" then race toward the border and play it by ear. That would guarantee the death & mayhem you so fear. It takes a shitload of people to handle an operation like this and virtually none of these people are "trigger pullers." If nothing big comes to pass and all the preparation was for naught, so be it. It's all "good training" as the saying goes, and it really is good training especially for inexperienced troops. Yes it would be great if the Central American countries had better economies and safer living conditions so the citizens wouldn't want to leave - we all get it. I wish the whole world was a better place. SPOILER ALERT it isn't (at the current time) and is unlikely to improve anytime soon. Since Mexico can't or won't stop the caravan they are setting these people up for a huge disappointment. I hope it fizzles out soon, but in the interim since Trump (or any other president past or future) will not just throw up his hands and let them bust through like they did in Mexico, the smart play is to get prepared so we are not caught flat-footed and empty-handed.
I don't know that. I've had people I've known way longer than you go way crazier way faster. Anything could happen.
There are also people who are chomping at the bit for some deadly violence to occur, making Trump their hero for sending armed troops to slaughter brown people.
That's a lot of words to say that you didn't see the word "unlikely" at the beginning of the sentence.
Oh bullshit. Living in the U.S. isn't a human right. We can discuss issues like brain drain on a country, assuming these migrants are in fact, the countries best and brightest. What about the economic impact? ~10,000 people need to be processed, and then what? Given housing and food at the government's expense? How many will even seek employment? What about the cultural impact? How many of these migrants even speak english? How well are the educated? Will they even TRY to integrate into our society? What happens to the next 10,000+ caravan that comes in? And the one after that? And the one after that? And the one after that?
Would it help if I replaced the words "track record" with "reputation"? I don't doubt the majority of instances are mundane but the sad truth is when the world hears "US army" the associations aren't always positive to say the least, right;y or wrongly. This doesn't smack of restraint at all, it smacks of being deliberately and visibly heavy handed.
I don't trust trump to stay within normal guidelines and not to make presidential orders that would put troops into direct contact with unarmed civilians. Trump has a record of pushing the boundaries of his orders into areas that the courts have repeatedly said exceed his authority and have had to be thrown out or toned down. As your own article states these orders are not fully formed yet, and that means they are either a publicity stunt for the elections, or trump is holding back on specific direction to the last minute to make it so the courts cannot stop his overstepping before it happens. In the end it is trump who is the problem. I know the military has laws that prevent it from being used as domestic law enforcement, but peop;le like you have elected trump to act as a king and trump is looking to use the military and any other might of the US to threaten and go well beyond his authority. The orders are not to shoot in the face, but when you place armed military who are not able to arrest people who cross the border, what other options do they have if people do not stop ehen they say stop? You are completely gullible when it comes to trump, and you make excuses for his over the top actions. You are not reliable to tell us what goes on in his mind. I hope you are correct and wiser minds will prevail and keep the US troops in an unarmed assist mode. Of course, election day is coming and maybe we will have a congress that immediately steps in and curbs the president's attempts to make an armed conflict where people will die.
yes I find it amazingly ironic how the Republican Party is referred to as "the party of fear" by some of the most mistrustful, overreacting, pessimistic people on the planet.
If you're waiting for me to do voluntary overseas work you're about a quarter of a century too late, been doing it on and off most of my life. Anyways, yes, I'd say it does potentially apply, the scale of the operation is way in excess of the problem, it's visible and well armed overkill. Those people will reach the border and see a massive force of armed troops waiting for them. Look at this in context with the recent shit show that's been the Trump administration's responses and stated intent with regard to immigration and tell me there's no intent to intimidate those people. "Subdue", "Repress", "Subjugate" all seem appropriate to me, as does "keeping someone in hardship" if that's what they're trying to escape. They may well be illegal but they don't pose anything like the sort of threat that would warrant such a response, if they pose any real threat at all.
ummm......could be because the US military is the military that is front & center under the microscope more often than most other nations? The best way to keep your car clean & shiny is to never take it out of the garage. Pick any country - Norway for example. Guarantee their military doesn't have a reputation for being heavy handed - because they are rarely involved in anything on the world stage where they can even be perceived as heavy handed! If Norway was a major player then the world would see them as heavy-handed. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback when you're not even in the game. The rest of the world can tell you how they would handle things but don't actually handle anything. After a while any major player will say "fuck what the rest of the world thinks, we need to handle our business as best we can!" Like the saying goes "everyone's a critic."
No, it isn't, and your argument fails on several grounds. One, they're not refugees. They've passed up offers of help to press on to a very uncertain future trying to get into the United States. They're also capable of independently crossing 1800 miles of Mexico to get here, so they're hardly without means or resources. Second, a big reason for having a military is to defend borders. Third, no one has the right to enter another country in violation of its immigration laws. Preventing that does not in any way, shape, or form constitute oppression.
Yes, absolutely. They should be treated humanely and decently while due process is allowed to happen for each individual. That does not mean they should be allowed to walk across the border and disappear into the ether of our society. So, manpower and logistics should immediately be put into place to deal with this. Oh, wait. That's exactly what's happening. I don't trust Trump further than I can throw him. I do trust Mattis.
You're right. Technically, they're asylum seekers. Does Trump plan on curtailing these people's right to enter the country in compliance of our immigration laws?
spot did volunteer work, which is commendable. But let me ask you spot if the shit ever hit the fan in a major way while you were volunteering, would you want a stronger or a weaker military force protecting you and/or helping you get out of dodge alive? Maybe I would consider the stronger force "overkill" and reduce it to a bare minimum and hope for the best. Any thoughts?
