Is the Wall Moral or Not?

[idhawkman]

I've seen many posters trash the idea of building a wall on the southern US border. Others say it is immoral. I think I would trust God's word more on a subject like this though.

After the Babylonian Captivity, a remnant of Jews returned to Jerusalem. They had rebuilt their temple and now needed a wall for protection. God told Nehemiah, who was neither a priest nor politician, but a builder, to rebuild the broken walls around Jerusalem. The destruction and deterioration of Jerusalem’s wall exposed its people to harm and was a source of disgrace. A new wall would be a warning to Israel’s enemies. It would provide protection and dignity to a people that suffered the judgment of God but had later been restored. A broken wall left its people defenseless. It would allow enemies to enter and cause “great trouble” to its people. Rebuilding the wall showed God’s blessing in that he wanted them protected.

Full article here: https://canadafreepress.com/article/god-told-nehemiah-to-build-a-wall

[burrrton]

Of course the damn wall is moral- it's been supported (and been being built) through many administrations, R and D. It may not be the ideal solution in some places where 'fencing' and such would be more effective, but this idea that a border wall is immoral is one of the more asinine results of Trump's election, a sign that some people have literally lost their minds over a politician.

[c_hawkbob]

The wall is neither moral or amoral, it's the treatment of the refugees that's amoral. And I don't care about examples of other administrations so save your fingertips. Wrong is wrong regardless of political affiliation.

[idhawkman]

The wall is neither moral or amoral, it's the treatment of the refugees that's amoral. And I don't care about examples of other administrations so save your fingertips. Wrong is wrong regardless of political affiliation.

Just so I'm clear, are you an American or just a world inhabitant?

[burrrton]

And I don't care about examples of other administrations so save your fingertips.

Surprise!

First, they're not "refugees".

Second, they're being treated as well as we can considering their numbers.

Third, go talk to EH OH SEE about voting against the bills intended to help assuage the conditions.

[idhawkman]

And I don't care about examples of other administrations so save your fingertips.

Surprise!

First, they're not "refugees".

Second, they're being treated as well as we can considering their numbers.

Third, go talk to EH OH SEE about voting against the bills intended to help assuage the conditions.

All three examples of how the dems are digging their own grave for 2020.

[c_hawkbob]

The wall is neither moral or amoral, it's the treatment of the refugees that's amoral. And I don't care about examples of other administrations so save your fingertips. Wrong is wrong regardless of political affiliation.

Just so I'm clear, are you an American or just a world inhabitant?

I am a human being first.

Are you an American first or just a Republican?

[c_hawkbob]

Surprise!

First, they're not "refugees".

Second, they're being treated as well as we can considering their numbers.

Third, go talk to EH OH SEE about voting against the bills intended to help assuage the conditions.

First, that simply not true, they are overwhelmingly refugees, by at least 9 to 1.

Second, Hogwash, they're being treated for as few dollars as possible.

Third, I have no idea what that means.

[burrrton]

First, that simply not true, they are overwhelmingly refugees, by at least 9 to 1.

Complete nonsense. "Asylum seekers" is the best euphemism Dems have chosen, and that only applies to those who follow the rules (you don't get to claim you're "seeking asylum" when you get caught trying to cross the Rio Grande) and "refugees" don't continue through countries where they're not being persecuted, and they sure as h3ll don't storm a border.

Second, Hogwash, they're being treated for as few dollars as possible.

Bullsh*t. There've been many bills proposed, and one finally passed over the objections of mostly Democrats.

Third, I have no idea what that means.

So you're not following the situation but feel comfortable commenting on it?

[RiverDog]

I wouldn't call "the wall" moral, but I don't have any moral objections to it. What I would call it would be a colossal waste of money.

[Aseahawkfan]

The fact you can cherry pick some Biblical argument for a wall from a book with Jesus Christ literally teaching lesson after lesson after lesson of caring for the poor and disenfranchised while his ultimate sacrifice for all human beings is giving his life to open the gates of Heaven to all is the height of hypocrisy and not understanding the teachings of the Bible and God in the New Testament, the most current version of Christianity we have. Jesus Christ would make the Democrats look like conservatives were he to come again as he was in the Bible. That being said I don't give a flying crap what some ancient holy book says. God or whatever people want to call him or her or whatever causes nothing but headaches in the modern day as people try to interpret his "will' from some ancient book while this magic being says and does nothing other than what a few crazies believe in their imaginations. I have about zero interest in checking ancient holy books to figure out what to do in modern times.

This rushing our border is BS. We are ill-equipped to have this many people rushing our border with kids. These folks are bringing this on themselves. Then the left is using it to sell the pity party to us as though anyone that makes it here from another nation the way they are isn't going to be in a sad state. I expect the border control professionals to do the best they can. I'm not sure what else we can do when they are coming in these numbers. A nation has not only a responsibility but a duty to protect its borders. When you are unable to do so, you don't have a nation. If your immigration policy consists of "If you make it to the border, we'll give you amnesty because we feel bad", you don't have a border policy.

As messed up as this is, we need to send the clear message that immigration into the United States will be lawful and controlled. Sure, I would like to see the facilities improved. No one likes seeing people suffer. At the same time they need to stop coming like this. It's not the right way to do things. If we were doing this to other nations, you can bet they wouldn't survive it any more than we survive this constant push of people unlawfully immigrating to the nation. There's not really a nice way to do this in the numbers they are coming.

[RiverDog]

The fact you can cherry pick some Biblical argument for a wall from a book with Jesus Christ literally teaching lesson after lesson after lesson of caring for the poor and disenfranchised while his ultimate sacrifice for all human beings is giving his life to open the gates of Heaven to all is the height of hypocrisy and not understanding the teachings of the Bible and God in the New Testament, the most current version of Christianity we have. Jesus Christ would make the Democrats look like conservatives were he to come again as he was in the Bible. That being said I don't give a flying crap what some ancient holy book says. God or whatever people want to call him or her or whatever causes nothing but headaches in the modern day as people try to interpret his "will' from some ancient book while this magic being says and does nothing other than what a few crazies believe in their imaginations. I have about zero interest in checking ancient holy books to figure out what to do in modern times.

Yea, the Bible is filled with so many contradictions and confusing text that a person can make an argument for literally anything and find some wording in the Bible to support it. My favorite inconsistency is the one both proponents and opponents will use on capital punishment that on one hand says "Thou shall not kill" and "eye for an eye."

This rushing our border is BS. We are ill-equipped to have this many people rushing our border with kids. These folks are bringing this on themselves. Then the left is using it to sell the pity party to us as though anyone that makes it here from another nation the way they are isn't going to be in a sad state. I expect the border control professionals to do the best they can. I'm not sure what else we can do when they are coming in these numbers. A nation has not only a responsibility but a duty to protect its borders. When you are unable to do so, you don't have a nation. If your immigration policy consists of "If you make it to the border, we'll give you amnesty because we feel bad", you don't have a border policy.

I'm not necessarily blaming Trump, but part of the problem is that the Trump Administration implemented their zero tolerance policy and our border and customs agents were not prepared for it. Congress and the Administration only recently have addressed the situation by increasing funding. Secondly, I can't make a blanket condemnation of those immigrants trying to gain entry. They are simply trying to do what they think is best for their families, and many of us would do the same thing if put in those circumstances.

As messed up as this is, we need to send the clear message that immigration into the United States will be lawful and controlled. Sure, I would like to see the facilities improved. No one likes seeing people suffer. At the same time they need to stop coming like this. It's not the right way to do things. If we were doing this to other nations, you can bet they wouldn't survive it any more than we survive this constant push of people unlawfully immigrating to the nation. There's not really a nice way to do this in the numbers they are coming.

Agreed. But just how are you going to stop immigrants from coming?

[idhawkman]

I am a human being first.

Are you an American first or just a Republican?

So now that you have told us where your first loyalty lies, do you believe in passports, Olympic teams, national anthems, national governments let alone state governments, city or any other local governments? Was God not looking out for Human Beings when he told Nehemiah to build the wall around Jerusalem to protect the Jews from aggressors? Additionally, why do we have a military at all since our way of life is available to the entire world even those who mean to harm us? Or do we need protection only from those that are deemed to mean us harm but only if approved by a select few to determine who that foe is?

[idhawkman]

The fact you can cherry pick some Biblical argument for a wall from a book with Jesus Christ literally teaching lesson after lesson after lesson of caring for the poor and disenfranchised while his ultimate sacrifice for all human beings is giving his life to open the gates of Heaven to all is the height of hypocrisy and not understanding the teachings of the Bible and God in the New Testament, the most current version of Christianity we have. Jesus Christ would make the Democrats look like conservatives were he to come again as he was in the Bible.

Bullshit and you know it. Building a wall is not only moral but in the interest of humanity. You would rather devastation by war? You know the US has been the most generous and compassionate nation in world history, too. You also know that not only Jerusalem has a wall around it but so does the Vatican. For what purpose are those walls there? Keeping people safe behind walls can and has been a compassionate act throughout history. Building walls and having a check point (Gate) that forces people to be identified and vetted to be good to join the community behind the wall is just good governance. Even Jesus recognized the role of government and taught that you must respect the laws of the land.

That being said I don't give a flying crap what some ancient holy book says. God or whatever people want to call him or her or whatever causes nothing but headaches in the modern day as people try to interpret his "will' from some ancient book while this magic being says and does nothing other than what a few crazies believe in their imaginations. I have about zero interest in checking ancient holy books to figure out what to do in modern times.

It shows.

This rushing our border is BS. We are ill-equipped to have this many people rushing our border with kids. These folks are bringing this on themselves. Then the left is using it to sell the pity party to us as though anyone that makes it here from another nation the way they are isn't going to be in a sad state. I expect the border control professionals to do the best they can. I'm not sure what else we can do when they are coming in these numbers. A nation has not only a responsibility but a duty to protect its borders. When you are unable to do so, you don't have a nation. If your immigration policy consists of "If you make it to the border, we'll give you amnesty because we feel bad", you don't have a border policy.

Agree. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the people coming to our border are not being persecuted in their own countries. Most border reporters have showed this along with the vast majority of those who show up for their asylum hearing are denied (86% last I heard). They are coming because of the economy that Trump has created here and even though everyone knows it, the dems and Trump haters can't admit it.

As messed up as this is, we need to send the clear message that immigration into the United States will be lawful and controlled. Sure, I would like to see the facilities improved. No one likes seeing people suffer. At the same time they need to stop coming like this. It's not the right way to do things. If we were doing this to other nations, you can bet they wouldn't survive it any more than we survive this constant push of people unlawfully immigrating to the nation. There's not really a nice way to do this in the numbers they are coming.

Sure there is. Step one funnel people to a point where they can be vetted. Not only their criminal background but their health condition. We now have outbreaks of measles, mumps, typhoid and there are warnings about the Plague resurging. We must stop this at the border and quarantine those people bringing that crap here. So first step is to reduce the locations that people can cross so we can make sure they 1. Don't mean harm 2. Aren't bringing harm to the occupants already here knowingly or not 3. make sure they are not going to be a burden on the occupants already here by making sure they can support themselves 4. that they truly intend to integrate into the society.

Step two is to reform the laws so that the people vetting those coming at the border have a clear direction in their jobs. Having border patrol changing diapers, running people to hospitals, feeding babies, etc. is a terrible waste of our resources.

Step three is to have a plan to put these people to work and have them assimilate into our society.

We used to do all this through Ellis Island before we let people into the US. We also used to have vast frontiers that could support huge numbers of immigrants. We still do have vast opportunities but not for everyone in the world.

[idhawkman]

I'm not necessarily blaming Trump, but part of the problem is that the Trump Administration implemented their zero tolerance policy and our border and customs agents were not prepared for it. Congress and the Administration only recently have addressed the situation by increasing funding. Secondly, I can't make a blanket condemnation of those immigrants trying to gain entry. They are simply trying to do what they think is best for their families, and many of us would do the same thing if put in those circumstances.

Agree with most of what you said in this post except the part where you say the Administration only recently have addressed the situation. The Administration has been addressing this situation for years now but everytime they tried to work with the Congress they were rebuffed so they would try and do stuff alone which is quickly stopped by the 9th circus court. The courts have made this situation what it is, not the Administration with its zero tolerance policy. Enforcing the laws is never a good reason for blaming them for the ills that congress and the courts have imposed on the country.

[RiverDog]

I'm not necessarily blaming Trump, but part of the problem is that the Trump Administration implemented their zero tolerance policy and our border and customs agents were not prepared for it. Congress and the Administration only recently have addressed the situation by increasing funding. Secondly, I can't make a blanket condemnation of those immigrants trying to gain entry. They are simply trying to do what they think is best for their families, and many of us would do the same thing if put in those circumstances.

Agree with most of what you said in this post except the part where you say the Administration only recently have addressed the situation. The Administration has been addressing this situation for years now but everytime they tried to work with the Congress they were rebuffed so they would try and do stuff alone which is quickly stopped by the 9th circus court. The courts have made this situation what it is, not the Administration with its zero tolerance policy. Enforcing the laws is never a good reason for blaming them for the ills that congress and the courts have imposed on the country.

The 9th Circuit Court stopped Trump from diverting DOD money to the border wall. They did nothing to hinder any upgrades at ports of entry or money to increase staffing. The crisis is at ports of entry with people attempting to enter legally, not unfenced border.

I assigned blame to both Congress and the Administration. It was the Administration that embarked on their zero tolerance policy without thinking the matter through and anticipating delays in processing applicants that such a policy would create. I don't necessarily disagree with zero tolerance, but Trump put the wagon in front the horses by instituting it now and worrying about the details later.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not necessarily blaming Trump, but part of the problem is that the Trump Administration implemented their zero tolerance policy and our border and customs agents were not prepared for it. Congress and the Administration only recently have addressed the situation by increasing funding. Secondly, I can't make a blanket condemnation of those immigrants trying to gain entry. They are simply trying to do what they think is best for their families, and many of us would do the same thing if put in those circumstances.

And the Democrats won't fund the increased border protection. They do this song and dance back and forth to get their way. Dems pushing open borders. Republicans pushing immigration control. Their grandstanding is leaving us with a huge mess.

Agreed. But just how are you going to stop immigrants from coming?

I'd fund the border control agencies including building better facilities and improving the process while being more diplomatic in my statements to the nations in question.

Then again I would be doing things in a far different manner than our administrations who have not helped this mess for decades as our failed foreign policy in Central and South America has not helped those nations. The Soviet Union and Cuba did not help either. The two competing philosophies of communism and democracy fighting in those nations has left some of them pretty broken. As is usual we supported too many dictators creating a political environment of the strongest shall rule to fight against Soviet/Cuba backed communists. Some of these conflicts still have not ended or they bled over into other nations in the form of paramilitary trained drug cartels. It's not the only reason, but it did not help.

Central and South America have the resources to grow, but they need to implement the right systems and morality. They don't have that in some areas yet. I might implement some programs to have certain immigrants engage in short-term immigration programs to teach certain skills they will learn and take back to Central and South America with maybe some business grants coordinated with American business. In places like El Salvador and Guatemala, it's the violent military dictatorships suppressing the masses that are hard to fix. There's a better way to do things and benefit the United States. If we can stabilize and build up that region, then we open the door to even more consumers to fuel demand for American business. The real problem is stabilizing those governments. How do we do that from afar without looking like the bad guy?

[RiverDog]

And the Democrats won't fund the increased border protection. They do this song and dance back and forth to get their way. Dems pushing open borders. Republicans pushing immigration control. Their grandstanding is leaving us with a huge mess.

The Dems see immigrants as potential votes and the Republicans see it as a wedge issue they can use to capitalize on the phobia their followers have about anyone that doesn't look and speak like them, so yes, it's a huge mess.

Agreed. But just how are you going to stop immigrants from coming?

I'd fund the border control agencies including building better facilities and improving the process while being more diplomatic in my statements to the nations in question.

Then again I would be doing things in a far different manner than our administrations who have not helped this mess for decades as our failed foreign policy in Central and South America has not helped those nations. The Soviet Union and Cuba did not help either. The two competing philosophies of communism and democracy fighting in those nations has left some of them pretty broken. As is usual we supported too many dictators creating a political environment of the strongest shall rule to fight against Soviet/Cuba backed communists. Some of these conflicts still have not ended or they bled over into other nations in the form of paramilitary trained drug cartels. It's not the only reason, but it did not help.

Central and South America have the resources to grow, but they need to implement the right systems and morality. They don't have that in some areas yet. I might implement some programs to have certain immigrants engage in short-term immigration programs to teach certain skills they will learn and take back to Central and South America with maybe some business grants coordinated with American business. In places like El Salvador and Guatemala, it's the violent military dictatorships suppressing the masses that are hard to fix. There's a better way to do things and benefit the United States. If we can stabilize and build up that region, then we open the door to even more consumers to fuel demand for American business. The real problem is stabilizing those governments. How do we do that from afar without looking like the bad guy?

That's pretty much what I was looking for. The only thing that is going to keep so many people from wanting to flee their country and go on a dangerous, grueling 2,000 mile trek is to do something about what's motivating them to leave. One thing that's only going to make things worse is Trump threatening those countries with cutting off aid. It's not like they have a lot of control over their situation.

We're not very good at nation building anymore. Jimmy Carter's Panama Canal treaty was supposed to strengthen that country and we ended up having to go in and remove their dictator. George Bush's Iraq war was supposed to result in a democratic country and we ended up with ISIS. I don't see any easy solutions, so the only thing we can do is upgrade our ports of entry to deal with this current crisis and dial it back when it subsides. But we do need to take advantage of those immigrants that are law abiding and that have the capacity to contribute to our economy by admitting them. They aren't all a bunch of gang banging drug runners.

[idhawkman]

The 9th Circuit Court stopped Trump from diverting DOD money to the border wall. They did nothing to hinder any upgrades at ports of entry or money to increase staffing. The crisis is at ports of entry with people attempting to enter legally, not unfenced border.

I assigned blame to both Congress and the Administration. It was the Administration that embarked on their zero tolerance policy without thinking the matter through and anticipating delays in processing applicants that such a policy would create. I don't necessarily disagree with zero tolerance, but Trump put the wagon in front the horses by instituting it now and worrying about the details later.

Your argument keeps being that you can't do both at one time. Where did you get that notion from? I know past administration couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time but this administration has been running circles around congress and comparatively past administrations. You seem to think that just because the work being done in your areas of concern aren't on the front pages of MSM or on the nightly news feed you read that nothing is being done. You can't be suggesting this are you?

And again, you are attacking the administration for doing their job. They enforce the laws they don't make them. You seem to be suggesting that they not enforce the laws on the books. Again, you should be mad at congress for not repealing those laws instead of chastising the branch of government that rose its hand to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Your blame again is misplaced.

[idhawkman]

I'd fund the border control agencies including building better facilities and improving the process while being more diplomatic in my statements to the nations in question.

Then again I would be doing things in a far different manner than our administrations who have not helped this mess for decades as our failed foreign policy in Central and South America has not helped those nations. The Soviet Union and Cuba did not help either. The two competing philosophies of communism and democracy fighting in those nations has left some of them pretty broken. As is usual we supported too many dictators creating a political environment of the strongest shall rule to fight against Soviet/Cuba backed communists. Some of these conflicts still have not ended or they bled over into other nations in the form of paramilitary trained drug cartels. It's not the only reason, but it did not help.

Central and South America have the resources to grow, but they need to implement the right systems and morality. They don't have that in some areas yet. I might implement some programs to have certain immigrants engage in short-term immigration programs to teach certain skills they will learn and take back to Central and South America with maybe some business grants coordinated with American business. In places like El Salvador and Guatemala, it's the violent military dictatorships suppressing the masses that are hard to fix. There's a better way to do things and benefit the United States. If we can stabilize and build up that region, then we open the door to even more consumers to fuel demand for American business. The real problem is stabilizing those governments. How do we do that from afar without looking like the bad guy?

The problem with your solution is that you think like an American. In those countries that you speak of there is a two class system with the ruling/upper class and the peasants/lower class. The only way your solution would work is if there is a middle class which there is not and the people the US has backed and given money to (the upper class) refuses to jeopardize their rule and control over the peasants by letting them get educated. Sending more money to those countries only empowers the ruling class more and the shame of it all is that the Dems know this but talk about doing it here in the US for talking points. The dems then work back room deals to provide services in the form of crap companies to those nations so that they get the benefits of the US dollar while the ruling class skims most of the money off for themselves and the PEOPLE of those countries continue to be exploited.

One think you write is very on point though. We (the US) far too often back the wrong people in these third world countries and it gets us in a huge mess down the line.

[idhawkman]

The Dems see immigrants as potential votes and the Republicans see it as a wedge issue they can use to capitalize on the phobia their followers have about anyone that doesn't look and speak like them, so yes, it's a huge mess.

This is just wrong. The republicans don't see it as a wedge issue, they do the bidding of their rich donors for cheap wages so that consumers like you will buy the cheap stuff.

That's pretty much what I was looking for. The only thing that is going to keep so many people from wanting to flee their country and go on a dangerous, grueling 2,000 mile trek is to do something about what's motivating them to leave. One thing that's only going to make things worse is Trump threatening those countries with cutting off aid. It's not like they have a lot of control over their situation.

Again you are wrong. Sending aid to those countries only keeps the ruling class in power. By drying up the money flowing into their coffers, they become a bit weaker. The only thing that will force change is the people (masses) rising up against the ruling class. No matter how unfortunate this is for a country its the only thing that will force the change that is needed in those countries. What the US can and should do is support the new government that takes over in helping mold them into a fairer form of government over the people. "IF" the US doesn't help them then the new ruling class will fall into the same habits of the previous rulers because that will be the only form of government that they will have known. The only difference is whose in power and who is not.

We're not very good at nation building anymore. Jimmy Carter's Panama Canal treaty was supposed to strengthen that country and we ended up having to go in and remove their dictator. George Bush's Iraq war was supposed to result in a democratic country and we ended up with ISIS. I don't see any easy solutions, so the only thing we can do is upgrade our ports of entry to deal with this current crisis and dial it back when it subsides. But we do need to take advantage of those immigrants that are law abiding and that have the capacity to contribute to our economy by admitting them. They aren't all a bunch of gang banging drug runners.

When have we ever been good at nation building? Your Carter and Iraq examples are great examples of how we have done it in the past as I pointed out in my other response above in this post.

[RiverDog]

When have we ever been good at nation building? Your Carter and Iraq examples are great examples of how we have done it in the past as I pointed out in my other response above in this post.

Following WW2 in West Germany, Italy, and Japan. We've also had some pretty good success in the Philippines and South Korea. But that was all prior to Vietnam. Since that time, we haven't had very many successes.

[Aseahawkfan]

The problem with your solution is that you think like an American. In those countries that you speak of there is a two class system with the ruling/upper class and the peasants/lower class. The only way your solution would work is if there is a middle class which there is not and the people the US has backed and given money to (the upper class) refuses to jeopardize their rule and control over the peasants by letting them get educated. Sending more money to those countries only empowers the ruling class more and the shame of it all is that the Dems know this but talk about doing it here in the US for talking points. The dems then work back room deals to provide services in the form of crap companies to those nations so that they get the benefits of the US dollar while the ruling class skims most of the money off for themselves and the PEOPLE of those countries continue to be exploited.

One think you write is very on point though. We (the US) far too often back the wrong people in these third world countries and it gets us in a huge mess down the line.

I'd be happy to steer clear myself, but other big nations always seem to make us take action or fall behind. We can't sit idle while China and Russia play world domination games and expect a good outcome. We in competition for control of the world. The world is ultimately a prison we all stuck in. Best to make sure the prison is as free as possible with crazy nations like China and Russia wanting to treat the world like state owned slaves.

[idhawkman]

When have we ever been good at nation building? Your Carter and Iraq examples are great examples of how we have done it in the past as I pointed out in my other response above in this post.

Following WW2 in West Germany, Italy, and Japan. We've also had some pretty good success in the Philippines and South Korea. But that was all prior to Vietnam. Since that time, we haven't had very many successes.

I thought that might be the example you gave. The Marshall plan was somewhat good but look where we are now. We still have thousands of troops in those countries spending their paychecks to help them build their nation and we are providing the vast majority of the defense for those countries while they spend their money on social and other programs. Doesn't seem like a great deal to me. It is better than fighting a world war but then again, we don't fight wars like we used to back then either.

[idhawkman]

I'd be happy to steer clear myself, but other big nations always seem to make us take action or fall behind. We can't sit idle while China and Russia play world domination games and expect a good outcome. We in competition for control of the world. The world is ultimately a prison we all stuck in. Best to make sure the prison is as free as possible with crazy nations like China and Russia wanting to treat the world like state owned slaves.

True but weren't you the one complaining about leaving our troops all over the world to include the middle east? Additionally, if we leave the world alone, the communists will spread their ideology making it harder for us to create a global market this is absolutely true but shouldn't we be compensated for protecting those countries from communist domination? What if they don't want to pay for our protection? If we are then acting as protectors in exchange for compensation aren't we just a mafioso extortionist? Are we also obligated to provide unfair trade relations with these countries?

THere's lots of questions that should be asked but for the last 4 decades no one in our political structure has asked them let alone addressed them to come to resolution. I am so sick and tired of ineffective government that I want to explode. I'm sure I'm not alone in this either.

[RiverDog]

When have we ever been good at nation building? Your Carter and Iraq examples are great examples of how we have done it in the past as I pointed out in my other response above in this post.

Following WW2 in West Germany, Italy, and Japan. We've also had some pretty good success in the Philippines and South Korea. But that was all prior to Vietnam. Since that time, we haven't had very many successes.

I thought that might be the example you gave. The Marshall plan was somewhat good but look where we are now. We still have thousands of troops in those countries spending their paychecks to help them build their nation and we are providing the vast majority of the defense for those countries while they spend their money on social and other programs. Doesn't seem like a great deal to me. It is better than fighting a world war but then again, we don't fight wars like we used to back then either.

So what was the alternative?

[idhawkman]

I thought that might be the example you gave. The Marshall plan was somewhat good but look where we are now. We still have thousands of troops in those countries spending their paychecks to help them build their nation and we are providing the vast majority of the defense for those countries while they spend their money on social and other programs. Doesn't seem like a great deal to me. It is better than fighting a world war but then again, we don't fight wars like we used to back then either.

So what was the alternative?

That's a good question and one that should be debated more in D.C. Do I think the Marshall plan was needed, yes. Do I think the U.S. should have let those countries continue to sponge off us ever since, NO! I think you know by now that I am very disappointed in our Govt's performance since the 70's. I'd go back to the '60s but I was too young to really understand the issues back then.

What I do know is that the Vietnam war can be attributed to the winning of WWII and to a great extent to the Marshall plan which was in place to rebuild Europe. If you extrapolate that out, without the Vietnam war, would we have had the campus riots, protests, and other festering issues that are still to this day plaguing our political environment? Maybe but then maybe not. Just an FYI - Johnson is another example of a Democrat administration going rogue with their intel agencies (deep state).

[RiverDog]

So what was the alternative?

That's a good question and one that should be debated more in D.C. Do I think the Marshall plan was needed, yes. Do I think the U.S. should have let those countries continue to sponge off us ever since, NO! I think you know by now that I am very disappointed in our Govt's performance since the 70's. I'd go back to the '60s but I was too young to really understand the issues back then.

What I do know is that the Vietnam war can be attributed to the winning of WWII and to a great extent to the Marshall plan which was in place to rebuild Europe. If you extrapolate that out, without the Vietnam war, would we have had the campus riots, protests, and other festering issues that are still to this day plaguing our political environment? Maybe but then maybe not. Just an FYI - Johnson is another example of a Democrat administration going rogue with their intel agencies (deep state).

Point is that there was no good alternative to the Marshall Plan and forward deploying troops to confront an unfriendly foe. Had we not stepped in to fill that void, someone else, a.k.a. the Soviets, would have.

We were very successful at building democratic societies out of the rubble, which is probably why it worked. Cities were leveled and all the former government officials/military rounded up and put on trial. There was no political, military, or civilian opposition. Most of the young male population, the types that start protests and resistance groups, were already dead, so we were herding sheep. That was nowhere near the case in Vietnam or the conflicts that followed. Following WW2, we were viewed as liberators. In the conflicts that followed, we were seen as invaders.

[idhawkman]

Point is that there was no good alternative to the Marshall Plan and forward deploying troops to confront an unfriendly foe. Had we not stepped in to fill that void, someone else, a.k.a. the Soviets, would have.

We were very successful at building democratic societies out of the rubble, which is probably why it worked. Cities were leveled and all the former government officials/military rounded up and put on trial. There was no political, military, or civilian opposition. Most of the young male population, the types that start protests and resistance groups, were already dead, so we were herding sheep. That was nowhere near the case in Vietnam or the conflicts that followed. Following WW2, we were viewed as liberators. In the conflicts that followed, we were seen as invaders.

The part I am refering to regarding Vietnam was the part of the Marshal plan that let the French re-establish their colonial rule in lands like Vietnam. Ho Chi Mihn was an ally to the US and was favorable to the US during WWII. We however, funded the french war and equipment in Vietnam against Ho's army that wanted them out. Ho would have fought anyone (Russians included) to rid his country of all outsiders. Without Truman funding the French in Vietnam and Johnson's false Gulf of Tonkin fiasco, we would never have been involved in that country. One could argue, that we would have been allies much sooner than now or at least on friendlier terms.

[Aseahawkfan]

The part I am refering to regarding Vietnam was the part of the Marshal plan that let the French re-establish their colonial rule in lands like Vietnam. Ho Chi Mihn was an ally to the US and was favorable to the US during WWII. We however, funded the french war and equipment in Vietnam against Ho's army that wanted them out. Ho would have fought anyone (Russians included) to rid his country of all outsiders. Without Truman funding the French in Vietnam and Johnson's false Gulf of Tonkin fiasco, we would never have been involved in that country. One could argue, that we would have been allies much sooner than now or at least on friendlier terms.

I'm so glad you read up on this. Vietnam would have been avoided if we hadn't sided with the French colonialists. The Vietnamese don't even like the Chinese. They took Chinese help to gain independence which suddenly shifted the fight to one against Communism. Total idiot move on our part to please European allies that hadn't grown past the "These are our colonies" mindset. I've been reading on Winston Churchill. The colonial mindset was astounding. I don't recall America making war like that where we were making alliances by giving them countries after we won. But the Brits and France were making deals to divide up the Middle East, Turkey, and various other lands after World War 2 to continue their colonial supremacy. That's how we ended up with the BS Vietnam War.

[Aseahawkfan]

True but weren't you the one complaining about leaving our troops all over the world to include the middle east? Additionally, if we leave the world alone, the communists will spread their ideology making it harder for us to create a global market this is absolutely true but shouldn't we be compensated for protecting those countries from communist domination? What if they don't want to pay for our protection? If we are then acting as protectors in exchange for compensation aren't we just a mafioso extortionist? Are we also obligated to provide unfair trade relations with these countries?

THere's lots of questions that should be asked but for the last 4 decades no one in our political structure has asked them let alone addressed them to come to resolution. I am so sick and tired of ineffective government that I want to explode. I'm sure I'm not alone in this either.

Yeah. I was. And I am. I hate it. I hate that we have to do this. I don't want to do it. America would be much better off living like Switzerland. Who else will stop China and Russia? Or other dictatorial powers from dividing up the world and making it dangerous. It's like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Most other nations sit by and watch until they get screwed, then they call us. At least Europe is mostly settled and peaceful. Those were some seriously warlike nations not too long ago. If they can reach a peaceful existence, we can get the rest of the world onboard at some point. If we do, then we can maybe pullback. Wouldn't that be nice.

[idhawkman]

Yeah. I was. And I am. I hate it. I hate that we have to do this. I don't want to do it. America would be much better off living like Switzerland. Who else will stop China and Russia? Or other dictatorial powers from dividing up the world and making it dangerous. It's like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Most other nations sit by and watch until they get screwed, then they call us. At least Europe is mostly settled and peaceful. Those were some seriously warlike nations not too long ago. If they can reach a peaceful existence, we can get the rest of the world onboard at some point. If we do, then we can maybe pullback. Wouldn't that be nice.

Europe has always been pacifists until it is too late. They are doing it again with Iran right now knowing that if Iran gets a Nuke no one over there will be safe. They could cripple Iran right now if they joined in on the sanctions we've imposed.

[idhawkman]

Here's what I believe the ultimate truth is anywhere in the world.

1. The PEOPLE of all countries have the same worries about:
a. Are my kids safe
b. Do we have opportunities to give our children a better life than we had.
c. The 7 basic needs of human life. (food, water, shelter, security, Belief in a higher being, etc.)

2. Governments and the people that run them are not concerned about the same things and thus get them into wars and domination crap.

[Aseahawkfan]

Europe has always been pacifists until it is too late. They are doing it again with Iran right now knowing that if Iran gets a Nuke no one over there will be safe. They could cripple Iran right now if they joined in on the sanctions we've imposed.

Europe used to be pretty far from pacifists. The fact you think of them as pacifists at this point in time just shows you how far they have come. The world doesn't speak English because of America, it speaks English because the British went around the world kicking ass. If you look at the world and it's languages, Europe used to be the most war-like nations in recent history. They got around.

[burrrton]

Gee, I wonder why Trump might be winning this debate:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... r-the-u-s/

[Aseahawkfan]

Gee, I wonder why Trump might be winning this debate:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... r-the-u-s/

This is just such a messed up situation. I'm glad I don't work on the border. Sheesh.

[burrrton]

This is just such a messed up situation. I'm glad I don't work on the border. Sheesh.

Agreed. With all of it.

[idhawkman]

Europe used to be pretty far from pacifists. The fact you think of them as pacifists at this point in time just shows you how far they have come. The world doesn't speak English because of America, it speaks English because the British went around the world kicking ass. If you look at the world and it's languages, Europe used to be the most war-like nations in recent history. They got around.

Thinking more of the Germans, French, Poles, etc. Until the Kaiser and Hitler, the Germans were kind of like they are now.

[idhawkman]

Gee, I wonder why Trump might be winning this debate:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... r-the-u-s/

The last stats I saw was that 25% or more of the "family units" crossing the border don't have a DNA match between the kids and the alleged parents. There's some reports that the same kid has been brought across the border 4 times but with different "family units". They say the Coyotes will sell you the kids to cross the border and the coyotes are making close to $1T between kids, drugs, etc. smuggling.

[idhawkman]

Here's something to think about. Since we can't refuse asylum seekers at the southern border and they are freely walking up to CBP to be taken to a processing center, why are they crossing the border illegally in between ports of entry?