Are We Fighting for Our Freedom Abroad

#1
I cannot help but agree with Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation who wrote an article on Memorial Day, entitled "An Open Letter to the Troops: You?re Not Defending Our Freedoms". His article can be found by clicking this link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger187.html

I have never supported those two wars nor the emerging one in Libyia and never will.

My message in addition to Mr. Hornberger's would be if you troops should be anywhere fighting for our freedom it should be along our borders where hundreds of thousands of illegal alien terrorist criminals, Mexican militia and drug cartels constantly invade our country, killing at least 25 of us each day, robbing our municipal, state and Federal treasuries of billions of dollars and eventually wanting to remove our freedom to live the American Way of Life and force their culture on all America.

Wouldn't you rather be dying ACTUALLY FOR YOUR COUNTRY and not another? Wouldn't you rather be attacking an enemy that is killing Americans, possibly members of your own family, stealing your jobs away and increasing your tax load to support them. I believe that is worth fighting and dying for.

Most of you troops have no idea how bad things are here at the home front. Can you believe that our National Guard troops along the border have to withdraw when Mexican militia cross over and force them to retreat or face gunfire. What do you think of Mexican militia invading our airspace to spy or harass our people, Border Patrol agents and National Guardsmen.

In fact your kinsmen along the border are praying and hoping something can be done and would love to have you back home fighting and dying to protect them, your loved ones, your land and the Rule of Law, which is the basic foundation on which our country was built.

Aren't many of you those who are Christians getting fed up with your Bibles being seized and burned and your evangelizing efforts being outlawed?

And those are the reasons I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT THE ONGOING UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF THESE NATIONS AND THAT INCLUDES WHAT WE ARE DOING IN LYBYA.

If I had to make a choice to harbor aid and abet one who goes AWOL because of the objections I have listed I would rather harbor aid and abet that soldier than do the same for an illegal alien which unfortunately too many people are ILLEGALLY doing today. You might say two wrongs don't make a right but at least it is an American citizen I am helping not one whose motives for being here could harm me and my country.
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
#3
I cannot help but agree with Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation who wrote an article on Memorial Day, entitled "An Open Letter to the Troops: You?re Not Defending Our Freedoms". His article can be found by clicking this link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger187.html

I have never supported those two wars nor the emerging one in Libyia and never will.

My message in addition to Mr. Hornberger's would be if you troops should be anywhere fighting for our freedom it should be along our borders where hundreds of thousands of illegal alien terrorist criminals, Mexican militia and drug cartels constantly invade our country, killing at least 25 of us each day, robbing our municipal, state and Federal treasuries of billions of dollars and eventually wanting to remove our freedom to live the American Way of Life and force their culture on all America.

Wouldn't you rather be dying ACTUALLY FOR YOUR COUNTRY and not another? Wouldn't you rather be attacking an enemy that is killing Americans, possibly members of your own family, stealing your jobs away and increasing your tax load to support them. I believe that is worth fighting and dying for.

Most of you troops have no idea how bad things are here at the home front. Can you believe that our National Guard troops along the border have to withdraw when Mexican militia cross over and force them to retreat or face gunfire. What do you think of Mexican militia invading our airspace to spy or harass our people, Border Patrol agents and National Guardsmen.

In fact your kinsmen along the border are praying and hoping something can be done and would love to have you back home fighting and dying to protect them, your loved ones, your land and the Rule of Law, which is the basic foundation on which our country was built.

Aren't many of you those who are Christians getting fed up with your Bibles being seized and burned and your evangelizing efforts being outlawed?

And those are the reasons I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT THE ONGOING UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF THESE NATIONS AND THAT INCLUDES WHAT WE ARE DOING IN LYBYA.

If I had to make a choice to harbor aid and abet one who goes AWOL because of the objections I have listed I would rather harbor aid and abet that soldier than do the same for an illegal alien which unfortunately too many people are ILLEGALLY doing today. You might say two wrongs don't make a right but at least it is an American citizen I am helping not one whose motives for being here could harm me and my country.
If anything, you should be invading Mexico under the truthful guise that you are protecting your border. This is why pussy liberals are a joke to we fascists. You sit back and take such silly crap, and only act when oil is involved. You care more for oil than you do your own people. We fascists would have invaded Mexico, and destroyed all cartels, to hell with any collateral damage, since we don't give a **** about 'spics.
 
Aug 2010
211
12
Reynoldsburg, OH
#4
obtuseobserver, et al,

I agree with this.
he lacks a geopolitical world view

he's political not practical

he's asking what's right in a micro sense rather than in a macro
(COMMENT)

There is certainly very little I like about what the way Jacob Hornberger presents his case in the "Future of Freedom Foundation" Open Letter; supra.

The target audience is all wrong, even if some of the points are correct. Nothing alienates a member of the Armed Forces so much, as a REMF telling them that they are wasting their time and risking their lives for nothing. It simply doesn't work that way.

They answer the call to duty by their nation. That is that. They don't get to pick and choose which enemy they fight or what battlefield they roam. Those decisions are left to higher authority.

The argument should be framed around specific points (Bottom Line Up Front or BLUF). And the target should be the decision makers (Congress). They authorize and fund wars. The Armed Forces just pays for them in money and blood.

Just My Thought, form a guy that served in Vietnam, as well as, Iraq and Afghanistan!

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#5
If anything, you should be invading Mexico under the truthful guise that you are protecting your border. This is why pussy liberals are a joke to we fascists. You sit back and take such silly crap, and only act when oil is involved. You care more for oil than you do your own people. We fascists would have invaded Mexico, and destroyed all cartels, to hell with any collateral damage, since we don't give a **** about 'spics.


Racism aside, some old fashioned Imperialism would solve the Mexico problem. The fact is that Mexico exists only because we only wanted the northern 2/3 of their country back in the day. Mexico has become a filed state with rebels overrunning most of the country and the resulting civil war spilling over into America, invading would not only serve to secure our southern border but restore law and order to Mexico. Integration would be fairly simple as they are also a federal republic. All we'd have to is decree that all Mexican states are US states and have them rewrite their constitutions to bring them in line with our own.

But the pansies in D.C. don't have it in them to fight a real war.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#6
Racism aside, some old fashioned Imperialism would solve the Mexico problem. The fact is that Mexico exists only because we only wanted the northern 2/3 of their country back in the day. Mexico has become a filed state with rebels overrunning most of the country and the resulting civil war spilling over into America, invading would not only serve to secure our southern border but restore law and order to Mexico. Integration would be fairly simple as they are also a federal republic. All we'd have to is decree that all Mexican states are US states and have them rewrite their constitutions to bring them in line with our own.

But the pansies in D.C. don't have it in them to fight a real war.
Like there wouldn't be blowback in that situation. That is an extremely radical idea and leaving aside the military cost and the ethics, the cost in entitlements alone makes it a horrible idea. This isn't Civilization, the video game ;)

The better idea is for both countries to end the war of drugs and decriminalize recreational drug usage/sales (weakens and eventually ends the cartels that are causing the violence).
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#7
Like there wouldn't be blowback in that situation. That is an extremely radical idea and leaving aside the military cost and the ethics, the cost in entitlements alone makes it a horrible idea. This isn't Civilization, the video game ;)

The better idea is for both countries to end the war of drugs and decriminalize recreational drug usage/sales (weakens and eventually ends the cartels that are causing the violence).
The problem is it's too late for that to work They call this a drug war and the rebels drug lords but that's no longer the case. Drugs are only a (minority) source of their power, they also engage in smuggling, gun running, slaving and politics. These aren't the drug lords of the '80s, these are warlords trying to carve out their own fiefdoms. If it's allowed to continue we're going to end up with a feudal Mexico only instead of swords and knights it'll be filled with AKs and gangsters. At this point war, for all the destruction it'll cause, is simply cheaper in the long-term.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#8
The problem is it's too late for that to work They call this a drug war and the rebels drug lords but that's no longer the case. Drugs are only a (minority) source of their power, they also engage in smuggling, gun running, slaving and politics. These aren't the drug lords of the '80s, these are warlords trying to carve out their own fiefdoms. If it's allowed to continue we're going to end up with a feudal Mexico only instead of swords and knights it'll be filled with AKs and gangsters. At this point war, for all the destruction it'll cause, is simply cheaper in the long-term.
It is all about the money- if you cut off what is undoubtedly still a large source of their income, then they will surely crumble. Everything you mention is a result of the money they get from the illegality of drugs.

As for "easier" or "cheaper"- what ever happened to self determination? I hardly think annexing countries and more importantly the people in them is easy, cheap, or ethical. Ever consider that all Mexicans might not want to be a part of the US? And it really is not cheaper, again in large part due to entitlements but also the costs of such a military operation (followed by the rebuilding).
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#9
It is all about the money- if you cut off what is undoubtedly still a large source of their income, then they will surely crumble. Everything you mention is a result of the money they get from the illegality of drugs.

As for "easier" or "cheaper"- what ever happened to self determination? I hardly think annexing countries and more importantly the people in them is easy, cheap, or ethical. Ever consider that all Mexicans might not want to be a part of the US? And it really is not cheaper, again in large part due to entitlements but also the costs of such a military operation (followed by the rebuilding).
In the short- to mid-term it wouldn't be cheaper. 100 years from now when we don't have a Somalia on our doorstep on the other hand...

As for ethics, that's a cop out. Where was the ethics in invading Iraq? In overthrowing SA gov'ts? In overthrowing the PM of Iran? In putting nukes in Turkey, miles from the Soviet border? In conquering Mexico in the 1st place? Ethics has no part in this, never has.

Ending the drug war was something that had to be done in the '90s, now they'll just focus more on the political side of things and hard drugs that'll never be legalized if we end it. That's not an argument for not ending it, it'll empty our prisons and defang many of our gangs but it's won't do anything but slow down the cartels and even that will only be short-term.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#10
In the short- to mid-term it wouldn't be cheaper. 100 years from now when we don't have a Somalia on our doorstep on the other hand...
I'm sure all the great conquerors, dictators, and authoritarians thought that way :rolleyes: I suppose you suggest that after that we go into South America too? Or that India should go into Bangladesh and Pakistan or one of many countries go into Africa?

As for ethics, that's a cop out. Where was the ethics in invading Iraq? In overthrowing SA gov'ts? In overthrowing the PM of Iran? In putting nukes in Turkey, miles from the Soviet border? In conquering Mexico in the 1st place? Ethics has no part in this, never has.
That argument is a red herring. Surely you aren't suggesting one bad act justifies others? If a man killed one man, by that logic it would then be okay for him to kill another another...

Ending the drug war was something that had to be done in the '90s, now they'll just focus more on the political side of things and hard drugs that'll never be legalized if we end it. That's not an argument for not ending it, it'll empty our prisons and defang many of our gangs but it's won't do anything but slow down the cartels and even that will only be short-term.
How does it not slow down the cartels only short term? As legal firms start supplying, how do you expect cartels to keep making money? Just look at the bootleggers before and after prohibition or countless other cases in the books of history where prohibition has been lifted.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#11
How does it not slow down the cartels only short term? As legal firms start supplying, how do you expect cartels to keep making money? Just look at the bootleggers before and after prohibition or countless other cases in the books of history where prohibition has been lifted.
The bootleggers were all about the booze and had we ended the drug war in the '90s when the cartels were all about drugs we'd of seen similar results. Nowadays, weed and the like only account for a small (small being relative, we're still talking tons worth millions) portion of their business. They also deal in hard drugs (which will never be legalized), smuggling, slaving and their political operations. I do believe contraband and slaves are now their primary source of income and with their political power growing don't expect the Mexicans to do anything about it. The only reasons the cartels and the Mexican Feds aren't 1 and the same right now is because Mexico has a president too stubborn to see the writing on the wall who keeps fighting. He'll soon run into the political brick wall known as term limits and Mexico will fall.
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#12
It's just a standard example of how imperialist states export their contradictions onto others and kill them in large numbers while feeling self-righteous about it. See the merry British contribution to selling opium in China way back when we were really self-righteous.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#13
The bootleggers were all about the booze and had we ended the drug war in the '90s when the cartels were all about drugs we'd of seen similar results. Nowadays, weed and the like only account for a small (small being relative, we're still talking tons worth millions) portion of their business. They also deal in hard drugs (which will never be legalized), smuggling, slaving and their political operations. I do believe contraband and slaves are now their primary source of income and with their political power growing don't expect the Mexicans to do anything about it. The only reasons the cartels and the Mexican Feds aren't 1 and the same right now is because Mexico has a president too stubborn to see the writing on the wall who keeps fighting. He'll soon run into the political brick wall known as term limits and Mexico will fall.
Their core business still relies on the drugs and when I say legalize or de-criminalize drugs, I mean all drugs. Look at Portugal- they are doing fine (in regard to drugs)

As for their other operations, they are all derivatives of the drug trade- the bootleggers and virtually all black market operations tend to expand into other areas just out of need in protecting their businesses. Smuggling is clearly tied to drugs and political operations too. I have not read much about the slavery (you have a link or something that you would suggest?), but surely it isn't on a large scale (not to mention slavery is too expensive in this labor market).

Also, you say legalizing all drugs will never happen yet you are proposing invading Mexico.
 

Similar Discussions