[aldo_14]

The "up to" 6,000 Guard members won't make arrests, and they'll be deployed only temporarily

what are they going to do - stare menacingly?

"Oi, you, stop there!"
"Eh....no comprende Englessh senor!  No understandamente!"
"I said stop!"
"Eh, or what, gringo?"
"Or i'll...I'll.....I'll call the police!"
"Bye senor!"

This isn't militarization.

The NG troops are there in order to support the border patrol by building infrastructure, etc. so more actual border patrol agents are freed up to, duh, patrol the border.

What, like the Berlin wall?

[Rictor]

This is one of the few issues on which I back Bush and US conservatives. Every country has a right to maintain its borders and control the influx of immigrants. If a nation decides that it will let in one immigrant every ten years, that their choice and they are allowed to enforce it. Given the size of the US-Mexico border, and the large numbers of people trying to constantly get acrosss it, deploying troops may be the only way to have effective control. Either that, or building a wall, but that would be even more unpopular. Now arguably, those patrolling the border should be trained and certified Border Guards (or whatever they're called), and not 18 year-old kids in the National Guard, but whatever.

From everything I've seen and read, illegal immigration is a very real and significant problem in the Southern US, with Mexicans displacing Americans as the majority in some places.

[achtung]

This is one of the few issues on which I back Bush and US conservatives. Every country has a right to maintain its borders and control the influx of immigrants. If a nation decides that it will let in one immigrant every ten years, that their choice and they are allowed to enforce it. Given the size of the US-Mexico border, and the large numbers of people trying to constantly get acrosss it, deploying troops may be the only way to have effective control. Either that, or building a wall, but that would be even more unpopular. Now arguably, those patrolling the border should be trained and certified Border Guards (or whatever they're called), and not 18 year-old kids in the National Guard, but whatever.

From everything I've seen and read, illegal immigration is a very real and significant problem in the Southern US, with Mexicans displacing Americans as the majority in some places.

I was going to make a nice long post but you beat me to it.

[Kosh]

This isn't militarization.

The NG troops are there in order to support the border patrol by building infrastructure, etc. so more actual border patrol agents are freed up to, duh, patrol the border

If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.

[Deepblue]

Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.

[aldo_14]

Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.

When they have a budget for it and it's not been pissed away on the Department of Rubik Cube Knockoff Inspections, IIRC.

[Kosh]

Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.

Other than helping with sandbags during floods, what do they do?

Where do you get your info from?


But also, what exactly are they going to build in the middle of nowhere?

[Mefustae]

A big sign that says 'GO AWAY!'?

[Herra Tohtori]

If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.

Because... the engineers are needed... elsewhere? 

Of course army is not wanted to perform army operations on domestic soil, they are sent elsewhere to do them. If they DID put army to do this, it would raise even more eyebrows and cries about militarization, even though they are now putting the National Guard to do exactly the same things army engineers would do.

Though I don't really know about the NG's role on US, I had a vague impression that they are more like a vacational disaster control force, deployed on areas where work power is needed for clearance operations or search&rescue missions. Pretty much what Finnish Defence Forces are also committed to do, if police, fire department or medical department or practically any authority requests help to do some simple things that simply require a lot of man power to do but do not require long trainging - an ideal task would be for example filling sand sacks to prevent flooding damage, or search for a demented old granny who disappeared from her home and wonders somewhere in the wilderness.

Practically, I tend to think that as long as they keep on to their own borders the US government can do pretty much anything their own laws let them to do, I have nothing to say to that. If they want to keep the mexican immigrants away by these kind of means, fine, I cannot judge them for it (though I do have my suspicions of what the real reasons behind this are - why have they not done this ages ago if they think the immigrants are this big a problem? They can't be that slow to understand things... or can they...?  )

Anyway, as long as they keep to US soil I don't really have a word of complaint. On the other hand, sending soldiers on the other side of the world to invade countries and overthrow their governments on basis of unreliable intelligence suggesting there to be WMD's is much, much worse. Good second of the List of Nasty Things is the government doing illegal things in the name of national security - Guantanamo prisoners' rights question, government telling untruthful things to their own nation and illegal telephone eavesdropping, to mention but a few things that, to tell the truth, scare me hella lot more than 6000 national guards sended to help patrol the US-Mexican border.

What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.

Hell, saying that they are dangerous is in itself no reason to keep them detained. I might also become quite dangerous if I was kept in a prison without a reason, trial or anything for several years, then freed and told that you haven't actually done anything wrong, but the reason we kept you here was that you could have done something wrong.

Well, this post is getting way off topic and becoming more of an angry rant about these things that we already have more than enough threads here, sorry about that. Anyway, if you US citizens don't like what your government does, start voting less lazily if you really care. This is not directed to any specific person or people, it's just that too many people in america are too little interested in politics to keep an eye on the politics and what they do. Meh. Okay, rant over, tear it apart or do whatever you wish with it. 

[NGTM-1R]

If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.

The Corp of Engineers does the design, management, and supervisory stuff. They're highly trained technical people, they don't do spadework. The Guard, more often then not, are the ones who provide the manpower to actually build things.

[Kosh]

I see. But still, what is the gaurd going to build? The Great Wall of America?

[Deepblue]

Watchtowers presumably. According to people who own property on the border, once a watchtower goes up, illegal immigration (at least in that area) goes down significantly.

[Bobboau]

for those of you unaware of what exactly the national gaurd is, let me provide a breife history lessen and explaination, when this country was young it was basicly a confederation, that is virtualy no central government (I'm talking the post revolutionary war-pre(and early post) constitution), before the current constitution was writen the national government had (amung many other things) no military, if the central government wanted to send a force into the ohio vally to take out a few british forts that were causeing problems they had **** all authority to do anything. in the early days _ALL_ power rested in the hands of the states, includeing military power, each state had it's own independent militia. after the constitution the central government quickly gain huge swaths of power, but in it there are to this day remnants of the old state run era, the national gaurd is the modern decendant of the state militia, each state has a national gaurd, the governer can call them up for just about any job he thinks is needed from them, usualy this is something like disaster releafe, however, if there is for example massive out of countrole (beond the capacity of the city police forces) riots, or if some group (like a cult or something) tries an armed upriseing of some sort the governer of a state can call in his national gaurd troops to do the military thing. now the somewhat confuseing thing is that the president can overide the governer and call up a state's national guard for some national crisis (if there was a major war with someone who could fight back and our cities were getting bombed, it's most likely that it would be the national guard that would be the domestic military preasence) each of the states that are involved could have at any time independently taken this action, unfortunately most state governers and governments lacked the political will to do so, largely due to the fact that these states have huge populations of illigals, and decendants of illegals (BTW if you are born on American soil you are a citizen, even if neither of your parents were in the country legaly) so the demographics of these states makes takeing any stand against illigal emigration politicaly dangerous or suicidal.

[Bobboau]

"What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions."
there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.

"What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in..."

what I hope is that if we go for war in Iran the rest of the world will look at the situation and try to make a judgement for themselves. if Iran is makeing nukes (and I think this time every one seems to more or less agree it at least looks bad) and gives the rest of the world the finger, I hope the rest of the world will give Iran the finger right back, and not let Iran get nukes just to get back at us.

I sould also probly mark this as the start of a potential thread split.

[Flaser]

there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.

1. The USSR lost over 12 million people during the war. The American casulties can be counted in (hundred) thousands.
2. You ovetook half of Europe (or pretty much put 'em on a short leash) for half a century with your red mongering, and pretty much didn't give a **** when people actually asked for your intervention against said menance.

In 1956 the Russians - fresh troops brought in from the East mind you, not the ones that were stationed here as they  refused to pound us - pretty much raped Hungary and the revolution was a political scar and stigma that lives on even today.

During that same interval, you shamelessly exploited your power over the international economy - since the stock markets were all valued against the dollar, you could simply press your money and get away with it, all in defense against the Red Menance™.

The USA is on a road where more the personal freedom of its citizens is curtailed, whereas your political freedom was forever pretty tight: you could never claim to be a communist and live to tell about it.
Your idea of secularisation is also somewhat skewed: you don't have a state religion, but religion is present in any foundation of your government. Every facet of your state is also ironbound to be a facet of God.
(He's in the courtrooms, the school, in all your oaths and even your football matches.)

So to sum it all up:
In spite of all your sermons of enlightenment and moral superiority, your superpower has wrought just as much grief on the world as the ill fated comrades did.
Your morals often seem hypocritical in face of reality. Your crusaders are no better then their original namesakes - with holy icons on their shields they are the worst band of bloody bandites history has ever seen.
Check South East Asia, the manufacturing farm for your empire - it's a practical modern colonialism with slaves bound by economic realities instead cold iron chains.
Check Africa, your dumping and testing ground for anything nasty you'd be too ashamed to see on your own soil. Recommended Film: Darvin's Challenge.

You're no hollier than the rest of us.
Is there *anyone* out there, that was actually saved by *you*?

[Mefustae]

Is there *anyone* out there, that was actually saved by *you*?

*Raises hand*

*Looks around*

*Slowly lowers hand*

[Ace]

Your idea of secularisation is also somewhat skewed: you don't have a state religion, but religion is present in any foundation of your government. Every facet of your state is also ironbound to be a facet of God.
(He's in the courtrooms, the school, in all your oaths and even your football matches.)

Not in the schools and courts of Washington State at least

But yes... most of the country is pretty screwed up in that regard...

[Herra Tohtori]

there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.

Yes indeed, the fear of unknown is often greater than the fear of what is.

I'm not talking about bringing down America, I'm talking about even trying to make US change its international policies at least a little bet onto more appreciable way. You know, not invading other countries and trying to talk for "free world", making many many people in third world countries (primarily moslims) quite angry about what is happening.

Then, when the religious nutcracks have taken advantage of negative emotions US actions have awoken, which makes it hole lotta easier to recruit suicide bombers and stuff like that, your government starts capturing "illegal fighters", which are basically any bearded civilian found near a battlezone, perhaps holding a self-made Klashnikov (probably just to protect himself and perhaps his family from bandits), call them "illegal combatants" and thus strip them off their human rights, such as international war legislation, because they are "not POW's" - but they don't give them civil legislation either, because they are not civilians either...?

If you look at the situation you notice that US is quite a bit closing to 50's situation in realtion to communism, but in stead of communism ther is now terrorism, and in stead of McCarthy's liaisons there is the Homeland Security and all other domestic intelligence. If you look at the Homeland Security web pages, you quite soon notice following, under "Threads and Protection":

The Department of Homeland Security merges under one roof the capability to anticipate, preempt and deter threats to the homeland whenever possible, and the ability to respond quickly when such threats do materialize.

The department is responsible for assessing the vulnerabilities of the nation's critical infrastructure and cyber security threats and takes the lead in evaluating these vulnerabilities and coordinating with other federal, state, local, and private entities to ensure the most effective response.

DHS encourages individuals to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity and cyber security incidents to Homeland Security.


Notice that

a. threats materialize, ie. appear from nothing. Though this might also be an attempt to use a bit more colourful language than most department pages...

b. the part in bold. That is what I would be most worried - in effect, they are gearing up a civil net to keep an eye on their neighbours. Not unlike in 50's US, or STASI in East Germany.


So, in the name of communism they are constructing a net of increased surveillance and putting the citizens to do the surveillance for them.

And no, US being a solid power does perhaps somewhat stabilize the world politics, but the point is that the situation could be so much better without mistakes made by US in the more distant past (putting Saddam on power, helpin Bin Laden to battle Russians in Afganistan, supporting dictators like Augusto Pinochet in countries where there was even a slight risk of the country having even remotely "communist" government, AND the mistakes made more recently, like attacking Iraq in the first place, but mostly dealing the invasion quite much half-assed, effectively turning the country onto a sandpit of suicide bombers, without an effective centralized government, and causing a greatly increased risk of civil war therein.

The point being that very big deal of anger against US in moslim collective mind really originates in mistakes US has made. When that anger grew too big for US, (that is, started to have a direct effect against US - mainly September 11th) they started "dealing" with it, but in process they have thus far only sprouted more anger. Even though I haven't learned psychology or political sciences, I can see that the current US international politics is not getting the situation any better but quite the contrary.

what I hope is that if we go for war in Iran the rest of the world will look at the situation and try to make a judgement for themselves. if Iran is makeing nukes (and I think this time every one seems to more or less agree it at least looks bad) and gives the rest of the world the finger, I hope the rest of the world will give Iran the finger right back, and not let Iran get nukes just to get back at us.

Oh bloody hell...

Firstly, Iran themselves have continuously stated that their nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.

Secondly, the agencies saying that the Iranese are developing nuclear weapons are the very same that, according to president Bush the Second, calimed that it was absolute certainty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was of course complete bull****. So I don't really trust any more very much what is said about the possibility of Iran manufacturing nukes.

If they do develop nukes, the do infrict the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they have verified, which would of course have grave consequences to their country's economy (which isn't in very good state the time being), and frankly, I don't think they would want to risk that. I rather think that as long as they are proved to lie about their nuclear programme's purposes, they really are doing civil research for civil purposes. "Innocent until proven guilty", as they say even in US - at least until these times. And for the time being, my opinion is that it is not yet proven. As long as they are into Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they must of course not develop nukes. If they withdraw from it, things become more complicated.

I don't want anyone to have nukes. That doesn't give me right to force everyone to agree with me. As much as it sucks, a country that is not onto Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has full rights to develop and produce nukes. What would needed is some kind of stron consensus in the UN to make having nukes at all illegal, and make the existing nuclear powers to get rid of their nukes ASAP. This would, of course, require the countries really submitting to international authority, including US. Unfortunately I don't see that coming very soon.  : What would rock, and hard, would be to gather all the fricking nukes in the world onto one spot on high orbit and DETONATE them all at the same time, preferably on new year's eve.   Unfortunately, I can't see that coming either...

I sould also probly mark this as the start of a potential thread split.

Seconded, this is getting out of hands.

[aldo_14]

Firstly, Iran themselves have continuously stated that their nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.

To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?

[Mefustae]

To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?

Possibly? I don't know, i've never heard of Iran making blatantly fraudulent claims to the world, that seems more of a Western thing.