Armed standoff on Mexican Border

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm....

Armed, UNIFORMED members of the mexican military cross the border illegally for illegal purposes. That's an act of war. War has been declared by mexico. It's time to start shooting them. Maybe it is time to impeach Bush. As an uber stauch conservative that voted for him twice that should demonstrate just how much "I've had enough". It's pretty obvious that these were not "innocent families", which is nothing more than liberal blissninny bs anyway. We have BORDERS! Either they respect them or else. I challenge anyone who disagrees to turn the tables and smuggle some contraband, say guns for instance, into mexico while heavily armed, and using bulldozers as makeshift tanks. You'll deserve everything you get. BS, enough of this nonsense!!!:fire: :fire: :fire:


I.C.
 
A couple guys with a few days off could go park themselves out in the desert with a couple .50 cals. Maybe pull a few motors from a few mexican pickups? Make them walk back? I dunno, just me being hopeful.
 
I challenge anyone who disagrees to turn the tables and smuggle some contraband, say guns for instance, into mexico while heavily armed, and using bulldozers as makeshift tanks. You'll deserve everything you get. BS, enough of this nonsense!!!
+1 on that.
 
It is not dynamite, because the MSM decides what news is dynamite, and what isn't. Those in charge of the MSM do not want hostilities with Mexico, so the story will not be given much attention. They are our future fellow Americans, after all. The deals have already been made.

no we are going to be part of mexico.

From appearances, some Mexican authorities may be involved in exporting Marijuana into the U.S.

Marijuana is a drug.

Uncontrolled drug abuse can lead to massive distruption and destruction of people's lives.

Many many people in the U.S. abuse drugs, leading to mass destruction of their lives.

So Marijuana is a weapon of mass destruction, sourced to Mexico.

Hmmmm....

Sounds like grounds for military invasion and "Regime Change" to me. WMDs and all that.

Then alcohol is a WMD too!!
 
Something tells me that this incident will not be widely reported by the mainstream media. No need to make Mexico look bad, since the minutemen aren't needed to patrol the border. As another poster indicated, it's what does not get reported that is most telling.

The media does not have a pro-American agenda. No surprise.
 
WTC I--we did nothing
Tanzania embassy--we did nothing
USS Cole--we did nothing
WTCII/Pentagon--we acted

Much smaller scale but I suspect the same stuff has been going on at the south border and the ruling class has done nothing.

Fortunate the taxpaying class is wising up and alternative media is a significant part of the process.

There is a tipping point out there. I don't think the taxpaying class will continually look the other way. There is a resurgence of American nationalism in effect and open borders is inconsistent with its characteristics.
 
308win said:
If this is true it is time to draw the line in the sand. Too bad we don't have leadership with the best interests of the Republic at heart to take such action.
Definitely. We need another Punitive Expedition into Mexico, but we have no leaders willing to actually use force in America's interest. They're more than happy, however, to squander our nation's money and the lives of our military personnel in the interest of foreign lands thousands of miles away.
 
Definitely. We need another Punitive Expedition into Mexico, but we have no leaders willing to actually use force in America's interest.

hrmmm....want to explain what you think a good punitivie mission would be, and what it would accomplish?

I think it's a bit ironic to go on tirades about Mexico and its supposed troops when Americans are paying billions of dollars every year to invite their drugs over. We are risking our lives and fortunes by the millions to get the stuff, and here it's an act of war when someone does something to give us the drugs?

Odd Indeed...
 
We need to call out the entire "Civilian Militia!"

This would solve the problem. Call out all capable, able bodied men and women alike and patrol the borders where this problem rears its ugly head!

If someone is caught smuggling, confront them.:evil: If the Border Patrol can't make it in time, kill the invaders! They'd do no less to us.:fire: :cuss:

Scott
 
Last edited:
"Didn't Bush give Mexicans free passage for their trucks?"

NO. NAFTA did that.

Since that was enacted in 1994 - ELEVEN years ago - it was in Bubba's term; not either Bush's.

June 8, 2004


U.S. roadways opened to Mexican trucks
High court ruling a victory for Bush administration


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the Bush administration can skip a lengthy environmental study and open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks as soon as it wishes.

The high court ruled against labor and environmental organizations that have long fought expansion of Mexican trucking within the borders of the United States despite a guarantee this country made when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Ruling on narrow procedural issues, the Supreme Court said the president has authority to open the border, and a federal agency responsible for truck safety has no say in the matter. Thus, the agency was under no obligation to study environmental effects from opening the border, as a lower federal court had ordered.

As a practical matter, Monday's ruling may mean little. The Bush administration had already begun the court-ordered study and is expected to complete it soon. The study could only delay, not prevent, the border opening, and the White House had already said that it would let the trucks roll as soon as it was free to do so.

President Bush ordered the opening of all U.S. roads to Mexican trucks in 2002, but the dispute has been tied up in courts.

The long fight, begun during the Clinton administration, had ground down to a last quarrel over an environmental assessment, or study, called an EA. Opponents of the truck expansion argued that a particular kind of study was required by law and that the Bush administration was ducking that requirement.

The justices said no, and also rejected what they called the opponents' attempts to make the case about safety and environmental concerns instead of about precise legal requirements.

"Because the president, not the (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) could authorize or not authorize cross-border operations from Mexican motor carriers, and because FMCSA has no discretion to prevent the entry of Mexican trucks, its EA did not need to consider the environmental effects arising from the entry," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

NAFTA, signed in 1993 by the United States, Mexico and Canada, allowed Mexican trucks to eventually use a large portion of U.S. roads. Mexican trucks are limited now to commercial border zones, forcing long lines at border crossings and complicated transfers of goods being shipped from Mexico to the United States.

Under NAFTA, Mexican trucks were to have gained full access to U.S. roads beginning in 2000. But the Clinton administration, under pressure from labor and consumer groups, refused to grant them entry. Mexico successfully challenged the moratorium through a free trade tribunal.

The California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered the government to do a $1.8 million study, which was expected to run a year or more. It was not immediately clear whether the study would continue after Monday.

The Bush administration had appealed to the high court for help, arguing that the two-decade moratorium on Mexican trucks should end.

The ruling ends a challenge from the consumer group Public Citizen, the Teamsters union and others who had sued on safety and environmental grounds. The opponents argued that Mexican trucks are typically older and more polluting than American trucks.

Mexican trucks make approximately 4.5 million border crossings every year. Mexico claims the moratorium has cost it more than $2 billion.

The case is United States v. Public Citizen, 03-358.
 
Those mexicans love to chase people across our bridges as well..many people fleeing them claim they were being "carjacked" by them..and I believed most of them. Never met an honest mexican officer/agent and I've had the pleasure of arresting a few. I don't miss dealing with those people or the politics involved with these issues and I don't ever see the situation changing.
 
It seems to me that with all the billions being spent on Homeland Security that actually securing our borders would be a good first step.
 
quiettype said:
It seems to me that with all the billions being spent on Homeland Security that actually securing our borders would be a good first step.

Obviously, you have never worked for the federal government :D

(yes, that is tongue-in-cheek, don't flame me if you actually do work for the federal govt).
 
Proven correct

"despite a guarantee this country made when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Ruling on narrow procedural issues, the Supreme Court said the president has authority to open the border, and a federal agency responsible for truck safety has no say in the matter."


Once again, this is:

1. ELEVEN years old; and

2. Another Bubba legacy - NOT Bush's.

RTFD :rolleyes:
 
Tory said:
"despite a guarantee this country made when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Ruling on narrow procedural issues, the Supreme Court said the president has authority to open the border, and a federal agency responsible for truck safety has no say in the matter."


Once again, this is:

1. ELEVEN years old; and

2. Another Bubba legacy - NOT Bush's.

RTFD :rolleyes:

Yuppers! +1:fire: :mad:
 
spartacus2002 said:
Obviously, you have never worked for the federal government :D

(yes, that is tongue-in-cheek, don't flame me if you actually do work for the federal govt).

That's a very good observationk, it's not limited to the Federal Govt. Lots of that money rolls downhill to various state agencies, all they need is a plan/proposal/etc. that demonstrates even a tiny connection to "Homeland Security". That money is padding the budgets of any low level manager with enough creativity to dip into that pot. I did some work for these pigs once upon a time - and trust me when I tell you "Homeland Security" is nothing more than another cash cow to them.
I sat in many meetings where they were scheming how to get their stubby little fingers on as much of that cash as possible.
 
gunfan said:
This would solve the problem. Call out all capable, able bodied men and women alike and patrol the borders where this problem rears its ugly head!

If someone is caught smuggling, confront them. If the Border Patrol can't make it in time, kill the invaders! They'd do no less to us.

Scott

If this was during WW-II and the Germans had landed on one of our beaches, would it be OK for a civilian to shoot at them? Would it have been against the law for a civilian during WW-II to shoot at a foriegn invader? Would that person have been arrested? I doubt it. So what is the difference today, then? We are at war and we are being invaded every day.
 
denfoote said:
This shows the need to give the border patrol sophisticated military hardware!! I'm not going to go as far as to say we need the military patrolling our borders because that opens up more worms that most people realize!! But arm the BP with, say, M60s, SAWs, or maybe a couple of Puff the Majick Dragons, and watch those narco terrorists run!! A couple of Abrahms tanks wouldn't hurt as well!! :evil:

Throw some Blackhawks into the mix and watch 'em run like scared rabbits.
 
"It's a very serious incident," Doyal said. "We are very fortunate ... no one got hurt. Everyone had the presence of mind not to cause an international incident, or start shooting."
You know what they say if its too hot in the kitchen -

I'm so sick of Mexico,if it were up to me,we would nuke the hell out of them!
And yet stupid Americans continue to spend their money in Cancun.
I have a better idea, lets annex Mexico and tax the heck out of them.

I think it's a bit ironic to go on tirades about Mexico and its supposed troops when Americans are paying billions of dollars every year to invite their drugs over. We are risking our lives and fortunes by the millions to get the stuff, and here it's an act of war when someone does something to give us the drugs?
“We are risking our lives and fortunes by the millions to get the stuff”? You make a very valid point, it’s all about supply and demand. However, I would just like to say that “some” risk their lives and fortunes to prevent “the stuff” from poisoning our children and communities.

If this was during WW-II and the Germans had landed on one of our beaches, would it be OK for a civilian to shoot at them? Would it have been against the law for a civilian during WW-II to shoot at a foriegn invader? Would that person have been arrested? I doubt it. So what is the difference today, then? We are at war and we are being invaded every day.
I think we better wait for a congressional declaration of war before we start popping caps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top