RLENT
Veteran Expediter
First you'd need to buy - or otherwise acquire - some clues ...
ANOTHER attack on the United States
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
East Germany was not it's own country, it was a Soviet Block state, 100% ruled and controlled by the Soviet Union. The "German" part had no say in anything.
If they had tried to gain their freedom it would have been crushed like what happened in Hungry in '56 and in Chezch in '68. Remember that the separation become "final" when the Soviet Union closed the checkpoints in an attempt to "starve" Berlin. That forced the US and other Allies into the Berlin Airlift.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/soviet-invasion-czechoslavkia
Berlin Airlift - Cold War - HISTORY.com
Soviet occupation of Hungary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, fine. For the sake of conversation I will accept that.
My point is, to use methods from one of histories horrid periods is an abomination to civilized peoples.
What is YOUR solution? You don't want a wall/fence. No troops. Is your solution to do nothing and hope for the best?
Besides, you are ignoring history. The walls/fences built by the Soviets were built to keep their own people from trying to escape their horror. Some are talking about building a wall/fence to defend the sovereignty, and security, of the Nation. Which is the most important function of the Federal government and the one function our government is doing NOTHING about.
There are only two choices, close and control the borders, or cease to exist as a Nation.
It is very naive to compare the proposed wall/fence on our borders to what happened in Marxist controlled Eastern Europe.
THIS is just ONE of the negative results of our government's refusal to control our borders. The other main negative result is a Nation is a very bad position to defend it's borders against further, and larger, attacks.
EVERYTHING that our government is doing, or is not doing, on our borders is causing harm to people.
It is my personal belief that what is not being done to defend our borders is a deliberate move, mainly to buy votes, to insure continuation of power. There is no concern for the damage the lack of action is doing.
[h=1]Migration spotlights Mexican 'coyote' smugglers[/h]
Migration spotlights Mexican 'coyote' smugglers
EVERYTHING that our government is doing, or is not doing, on our borders is causing harm to people.
It is my personal belief that what is not being done to defend our borders is a deliberate move, mainly to buy votes, to insure continuation of power. There is no concern for the damage the lack of action is doing.
[h=1]Migration spotlights Mexican 'coyote' smugglers[/h]
Migration spotlights Mexican 'coyote' smugglers
You know how in Berlin that people were shot who tried to climb the wall? That's exactly what some people want to do to illegals if they try to cross our southern border.
Invaders are always shot when defending a border. That is the chance you take when you choose to invade/enter ILLEGALLY, break the law, etc etc etc.
They have a CHOICE, stay and fix their own country or come here illegally.
They have no right to come here illegally.
Do I WANT to see that happen? Nope. Are there people dying every day due to our unwillinginess to control the borders? Yep. Are they any more dead either way? Nope. Put an end to it, all the deaths will end. Do what we are doing now, it is going to escalate.
Our government is the primary reason this is taking place. It is putting the lives of millions at risk.
Solve it any way you want, except by borrowing money to send to those corrupt governments from this corrupt government.
I want the borders secured, now, right now, and there's no valid reason for not doing so.
At the same time, I'm not going to sit here and label someone who desperately wants to get here any way they can, to try and give themselves a better life, an "invader," and thus justify shooting them as an invader. That's ridiculous, not to mention barbaric bloodlust. By definition an invader is someone or something that enters forcefully as an enemy with hostile intent. Someone just looking for a better life is not an enemy with hostile intent.
At the same time, I'm not going to sit here and label someone who desperately wants to get here any way they can, to try and give themselves a better life, an "invader," and thus justify shooting them as an invader. That's ridiculous, not to mention barbaric bloodlust. By definition an invader is someone or something that enters forcefully as an enemy with hostile intent. Someone just looking for a better life is not an enemy with hostile intent.
I believe that MANY who are coming in across our borders are doing so with hostile intent. Most are not. To ignore the military situation on the border is dangerous.
It is NOT by accident that we are being fired on. It is NOT by accident that our air space is being invaded. Those are deliberate acts to accomplish pre-determined military objectives.
Those who are doing this are using those people as "shields" KNOWING we don't like to use force to defend our selves and are taking advantage of our "weakness", for lack of a better term.
There is also more than one definition for "invader". My use of the word IS correct.
in·vade (
v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval"(Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
v.intr.
Looks like the problem may be solved. Obama is sending 47 million in humanitarian aid for starters to the gaza strip. Once Israel gets done bombing it, we will send billions to rebuild it and probably put a wall around it. Just put our illegals on a plane, and send them over there. Easy-peezy.
Kerry pushes cease-fire for Gaza Strip as Israeli soldier reported missing | Fox News
Kerry pushes cease-fire for Gaza Strip as Israeli soldier reported missing | Fox News
Looks like the problem may be solved. Obama is sending 47 million in humanitarian aid for starters to the gaza strip. Once Israel gets done bombing it, we will send billions to rebuild it and probably put a wall around it. Just put our illegals on a plane, and send them over there. Easy-peezy.
Kerry pushes cease-fire for Gaza Strip as Israeli soldier reported missing | Fox News
Makes more sense that anything that Obama, is, or is not, doing to solve this. Not that he wants it solved. Solving it does NOT fit his political goals, which is his only concern.
And to treat the "most" as if they are the "MANY" is not only dangerous, but irresponsible.
Horse hockey. These are deliberate acts by criminals to accomplish pre-determined profit objectives.
Oh, yeah, we're little lambs - weak, meek, bubble and squeak. Except we do like to use force to defend ourselves. We like to use it very much. It's our bread and butter. Heck, we use force to defend ourselves even when we don't need to, just because we can, in order to remind people that we will.
There is also more than one definition for "invader". My use of the word IS correct.
in·vade(n-vd)v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval"(Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
v.intr.
Nope, sorry. Every definition you just used to make your case includes hostile intent (in order to conquer or pillage, violate, infest, permeate especially harmfully). But your statement above has everyone coming here as having hostile intent, including people with no hostile intent whatsoever, people who break the law, and anything and everything included in three separate Et ceteras, which literally means "and the rest of such things."
So like I said, I'm not going to sit here and label someone who desperately wants to get here any way they can, to try and give themselves a better life, an "invader," and thus justify shooting them as an invader. I said that because doing so is precisely what you advocate, reinforced by your three Et ceteras. Clearly, you believe that anyone and everyone coming here illegally, regardless of why they want to come here, are coming here a an invader for hostile intent.
Mexican emigrants crossing the Rio Grande near El Paso. (Danny Lehman/Corbis)
Look! Illegal criminal alien scumbag invaders!!! Shoot 'em!
They knew the chance they were taking.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Geezus ... someone please cue The Twilight Zone opening theme will ya ...
According to definitions #3 & #4 your usage is correct. The shipworms in 1917 had no hostile intent, and neither do termites or stink bugs that invade/infest someone's house. They're just looking for something to eat and an acceptable place to live and procreate. The bugs can't conceive that they do harm to the structure they invade/infest; most of the human invaders don't understand it either and wouldn't care if they did.I believe that MANY who are coming in across our borders are doing so with hostile intent. Most are not...
There is also more than one definition for "invader". My use of the word IS correct.
in·vade(n-vd)v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval"(Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
v.intr.
Whether the bugs can concieve it or not, their intentions are hostile because they infest to do harm. That's their purpose, it's all they do. That's why they are classified as pests to be eradicated. Clearly, we can add two more names to the leaderboard who thinks illegals are pests who should be eradicated as such.
Last edited:
Bugs can't have intentions, hostile or otherwise - their brains aren't that highly developed. Bugs have instincts, and at the level of shipworms and termites their primary instincts are survival and procreation. One of these instincts is to eat; ships and houses just happen to be on their menu and infestation is part of this process. In other words, invasion in necessary to access their food.
They are only classified as pests and eradicated when they invade and start eating somebody's house. We erect barriers (dare I say borders?) so they stay in the woods where they belong and eat dead trees like they're supposed to.
That's simply a misrepresentation of what was said.
Likely, we have two names who think immigrants should go through the LEGAL process to gain citizenship; there's a reason our country has borders. However, ILLEGALS definitely are pests because they threaten our society and our way of life. They should be kept out of the country, not "eradicated" - unless they're the kind who want to eradicate us.
I'm not calling for anyone to be eradicated or shot. Just clarifying the definition of invader. It doesn't always mean with hostile intent. As applied to illegal aliens,many don't even think they are invading our country.Some of our politicians think that illegals should be welcomed with open arms,and not be deported and have stated so publicly.So it is a wonder some don't think they are invading. Put the National Guard down there,build more walls, and immediately deport them. Have them come in the legal way. Expand legal immigration a bit, but only when the country can handle it.