BE prepared... - Page 3

7960 · 11-08-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It stopped the ethnic cleansing...just because it spiked for a little doesn't mean anything

Post-Clinton Kosovo/region is a lot better thanks to him, you and me both owe Clinton our thanks

Again, wrong.

Clinton claimed on March 24, 1999, that one purpose of bombing Serbia (including Kosovo) was “to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.” The CIA had warned the Clinton administration that if bombing was initiated, the Serbian army would greatly accelerate its efforts to expel ethnic Albanians. The White House disregarded this warning and feigned surprise when mass expulsions began.

Yet NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said on March 26 that the upsurge in crackdowns on ethnic Albanians was “entirely predictable.” Since NATO had no ground forces in the area ready to intervene and since NATO planes stayed three miles above the ground to minimize pilot casualties, NATO could do nothing to stop the surge in ethnic cleansing. Violence spurred by the bombing was quickly invoked as the ultimate justification for the bombing.

Clinton's Kosovo Frauds

I honestly don't know where you're getting your information, but you're wrong.

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ah yes, slowly...you mean like the immigration policy we've had in place all these years?

We let everyone in for a while. The ONLY time that was a mistake was late 1800's - early 1900's and we should have seen that coming. It's something to monitor, but not restrict til a real problem emerges.

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We let everyone in for a while. The ONLY time that was a mistake was late 1800's - early 1900's and we should have seen that coming. It's something to monitor, but not restrict til a real problem emerges.

I'm of the mindset that we shouldn't let a problem arise before we deal with it. I prefer to avoid the problems altogether. It's cheaper, easier, and safer.

Publius · 11-08-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm of the mindset that we shouldn't let a problem arise before we deal with it. I prefer to avoid the problems altogether. It's cheaper, easier, and safer.

And our current immigration law of letting them in slowly has created the problem on literally millions of undocumented aliens... Tell me please how this is better than a more open immigration policy?

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

And our current immigration law of letting them in slowly has created the problem on literally millions of undocumented aliens... Tell me please how this is better than a more open immigration policy?

The immigration policy isn't the problem. It's border security.

Publius · 11-08-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The immigration policy isn't the problem. It's border security.

If we had a more open immigration policy, there would be less incentive to cross illegally. Hence why I support a much looser immigration policy in conjunction with much stronger border security.

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

If we had a more open immigration policy, there would be less incentive to cross illegally. Hence why I support a much looser immigration policy in conjunction with much stronger border security.

Yeah, let's accept immigrants when our economy can't handle it. We see what happens when countries have very open immigration policies; why do refuse to learn from their mistakes?

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The immigration policy isn't the problem. It's border security.

Which costs more economically? A huge fence with patrol officers monitoring it 24 hours a day for eternity (note: this will still not eliminate the problem, no matter how much money you put into it), or letting immigrants in, let them get jobs, let them spend money (even if the money spent is in their home country, because that only allows their home country to buy more shit from us)... basically let them ADD to our economy.

I mean, one has economic cost, and the other has economic benefit. What's the problem, boss?

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, let's accept immigrants when our economy can't handle it. We see what happens when countries have very open immigration policies; why do refuse to learn from their mistakes?

Our economy can't handle it? This is news. Our economy is growing, and as long as it does, it can handle it... plus, as long as they come and get jobs and spend money, the economy grows. It's like an inverse Catch-22!!

We can handle them already... because they're ALREADY getting jobs and spending money. Now we just let them do it LEGALLY, and there's no difference. More can come, it's all good in the hood.

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Which costs more economically? A huge fence with patrol officers monitoring it 24 hours a day for eternity (note: this will still not eliminate the problem, no matter how much money you put into it), or letting immigrants in, let them get jobs, let them spend money (even if the money spent is in their home country, because that only allows their home country to buy more shit from us)... basically let them ADD to our economy.

I mean, one has economic cost, and the other has economic benefit. What's the problem, boss?

Which costs more? I guess it all depends on how much of the big picture you want to consider. If it causes our economy to implode because we can't sustain the government programs that keep these immigrants afloat, well I'd say border security is a LOT cheaper. I'd rather spend millions (a small percentage of the budget) on border security than risk losing our country.

Scrum · 11-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Which costs more economically? A huge fence with patrol officers monitoring it 24 hours a day for eternity (note: this will still not eliminate the problem, no matter how much money you put into it), or letting immigrants in, let them get jobs, let them spend money (even if the money spent is in their home country, because that only allows their home country to buy more shit from us)... basically let them ADD to our economy.

I mean, one has economic cost, and the other has economic benefit. What's the problem, boss?

I love your line of thinking in this.

Publius · 11-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, let's accept immigrants when our economy can't handle it. We see what happens when countries have very open immigration policies; why do refuse to learn from their mistakes?

There really aren't ANY countries in the world with an open immigration policy at the moment, save for those that have such a weak government that they have NO practical immigration policy. Our nation had a very open immigration policy from birth to the 1900s, and we developed from a backwater set of colonies into a world power... I hardly call that a mistake we need to learn from.

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:33 PM

[quote=Ardentfrost;58312]Our economy can't handle it? This is news. Our economy is growing, and as long as it does, it can handle it[quote]Not true; our economy can't continue to grow forever. There is a maximum. There is always a maximum.

... plus, as long as they come and get jobs and spend money, the economy grows. It's like an inverse Catch-22!!

The majority of Mexico's money comes from workers sending their money home. Them spending it in Mexico doesn't help our economy.

We can handle them already... because they're ALREADY getting jobs and spending money. Now we just let them do it LEGALLY, and there's no difference. More can come, it's all good in the hood.

It's not a precedent that needs to be set.

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Which costs more? I guess it all depends on how much of the big picture you want to consider. If it causes our economy to implode because we can't sustain the government programs that keep these immigrants afloat, well I'd say border security is a LOT cheaper. I'd rather spend millions (a small percentage of the budget) on border security than risk losing our country.

Sounds to me like you got a problem with gov't programs, not immigrants

Legal immigrants help pay for the programs anyway. Illegals can use them without paying for them. Sounds like another reason to legalize immigration.

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

There really aren't ANY countries in the world with an open immigration policy at the moment, save for those that have such a weak government that they have NO practical immigration policy.

You're asking for an impractical immigration policy for us...

Our nation had a very open immigration policy from birth to the 1900s, and we developed from a backwater set of colonies into a world power... I hardly call that a mistake we need to learn from.

Our nation, when it was young, was able to take in as many immigrants as possible. There were few poeple, plenty of space, and plenty of opportunity for all of them. As our country is filling up, that is not the case anymore.

Think of it as your body; as you're young, you have the ability to eat, play, and do whatever you want. As you grow old, your body can't handle the food, the activities, the stress it once did. You must modify your lifestyle to what's healthiest for you. The same applies for the country.

Thorgrim · 11-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Again, wrong.

Clinton claimed on March 24, 1999, that one purpose of bombing Serbia (including Kosovo) was “to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.” The CIA had warned the Clinton administration that if bombing was initiated, the Serbian army would greatly accelerate its efforts to expel ethnic Albanians. The White House disregarded this warning and feigned surprise when mass expulsions began.

Yet NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said on March 26 that the upsurge in crackdowns on ethnic Albanians was “entirely predictable.” Since NATO had no ground forces in the area ready to intervene and since NATO planes stayed three miles above the ground to minimize pilot casualties, NATO could do nothing to stop the surge in ethnic cleansing. Violence spurred by the bombing was quickly invoked as the ultimate justification for the bombing.

Clinton's Kosovo Frauds

I honestly don't know where you're getting your information, but you're wrong.

Look at the 1990s...the serbians were ethnically cleansing for years, Kosovo was the topping on the cake, the US should have been their earlier...

Bottom Line: The Balkans are much better now thanks to Clinton

ballz2wallz · 11-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Sounds to me like you got a problem with gov't programs, not immigrants

:duh:

Unfortunately, our country is already set up to give the immigrants practically anything they want, at the cost of your money and mine. You thinnk that's gonna change? Get real...

Legal immigrants help pay for the programs anyway. Illegals can use them without paying for them. Sounds like another reason to legalize immigration.

We ALL help pay for the programs...and we shouldn't have to.

I'm telling you, once the rest of the world sees how we handle immigrants, what do you think is gonna happen? You think 13 million is a lot now? That'll be peanuts compared to what can happen.

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The majority of Mexico's money comes from workers sending their money home. Them spending it in Mexico doesn't help our economy.

It's not a precedent that needs to be set.

Import/Export 101: A foreign country needs local currency to buy local goods, and vice versa. Them spending dollars in Mexico is the equivalent of them importing dollars... then they can use those dollars to trade other American goods or pesos (which were used to buy Mexican goods).

In other words, no love lost there. It's just trading back and forth, done by mexican people, their banks, and their government.

Publius · 11-08-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You're asking for an impractical immigration policy for us...

Our nation, when it was young, was able to take in as many immigrants as possible. There were few poeple, plenty of space, and plenty of opportunity for all of them. As our country is filling up, that is not the case anymore.

Think of it as your body; as you're young, you have the ability to eat, play, and do whatever you want. As you grow old, your body can't handle the food, the activities, the stress it once did. You must modify your lifestyle to what's healthiest for you. The same applies for the country.

The United States is nowhere near "full" ... There are VAST sections of the nation with very low population densities. If we had a couple of billion people packed into the country you might have an argument, but we don't.

Ardentfrost · 11-08-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

:duh:

Unfortunately, our country is already set up to give the immigrants practically anything they want, at the cost of your money and mine. You thinnk that's gonna change? Get real...

We ALL help pay for the programs...and we shouldn't have to.