Does America have enough security?

[Snagglepuss]

More guards would be far more useful. A fence just a tool. If it's not being watched it, it stops no one

I think I'm wrong about this, so please correct me...

The government doesn't seem to want to spend the money to put people out there, and nobody seems to want to be out there. Nobody the government cares about, anyway. Like you said, Bush isn't very fond of minutemen militia, even though it appears that they're the most dedicated to the cause...O.o o.O

Kinda reminds me of hearing about helicopters in New Orleans getting shot at, when all they were doing was trying to save lives...O.o o.O

[Leader]

I think I'm wrong about this, so please correct me...

The government doesn't seem to want to spend the money to put people out there, and nobody seems to want to be out there. Nobody the government cares about, anyway. Like you said, Bush isn't very fond of minutemen militia, even though it appears that they're the most dedicated to the cause...O.o o.O

The government is different then the people. The American people support better border security.

Kinda reminds me of hearing about helicopters in New Orleans getting shot at, when all they were doing was trying to save lives...O.o o.O

I don't see the comparison. Those stories were factually incorrect. They were rumors that were turned into fact by the media.

[Snagglepuss]

The government is different then the people. The American people support better border security.

And there isn't better border security because? O wait, I know! Is it because of budget issues? Or the government just being too lazy to swap people willing to work there with people who aren't, putting them on the government's payroll? Or am I just completely misunderstanding the whole issue? Note: Not being sarcastic. At all.

I don't see the comparison. Those stories were factually incorrect. They were rumors that were turned into fact by the media.

Exactly.

[Leader]

And there isn't better border security because? O wait, I know! Is it because of budget issues?

No. It doesn’t cost that much that they couldn’t find the money or just barrow it.

Or the government just being too lazy to swap people willing to work there with people who aren't, putting them on the government's payroll?

No. Politicians don’t have to do much work to get this done.

Or am I just completely misunderstanding the whole issue?

Somewhat, it doesn't pass because both parties are beholden to the false belief that Hispanics oppose stricter border control.

[Snagglepuss]

Somewhat, it doesn't pass because both parties are beholden to the false belief that Hispanics oppose stricter border control.

Wait, 'nother question...Didn't the U.S. provoke Mexico into attacking so it could have Texas, California, and a couple other states? I read that in a book about U.S. Grant. It said that Polk, the president at that time, stationed 'the army of provocation' near the River Grande, I think it was. The soldiers set up a fort, blah blah blah, Mexico attacked, America beat them down and seized all that land. Is that the way it actually happened? If it is, does it even matter if they come over? I mean, it sounds like that land was their home, just like this country was home to American Indians--before Europeans came over and stole it.

I'm not trying to do anything but get an actual answer. I'm so uninformed...XP And it's MY fault! *Dies*

[TopHatter]

I'm not trying to do anything but get an actual answer. I'm so uninformed...XP And it's MY fault! *Dies*

A good answer to your question is in this Wikipedia article.

You'll note that even though Mexico was defeated in the war and basically forced to give up large amounts of land to the United States (which the losers to have to do in war), the United States also paid Mexico the sum of $627 million (in today's dollars).
I can't say what the land was valued at back then, but you generally don't see a victor laying out cash on the barrel for land that they've taken by force of arms.

[THL]

the United States also paid Mexico the sum of $627 million (in today's dollars).

What do you suppose Mexico's return policy is on large pieces of land? Even with a restocking fee, we'd come out ahead.

[Leader]

What do you suppose Mexico's return policy is on large pieces of land? Even with a restocking fee, we'd come out ahead.

I'd rather give them New England.

[Snagglepuss]

A good answer to your question is in this Wikipedia article.

You'll note that even though Mexico was defeated in the war and basically forced to give up large amounts of land to the United States (which the losers to have to do in war), the United States also paid Mexico the sum of $627 million (in today's dollars).
I can't say what the land was valued at back then, but you generally don't see a victor laying out cash on the barrel for land that they've taken by force of arms.

But you do see families getting compensation when a family member in the armed forces dies in combat, don't you? I don't know if Mexico did that thing or not, but what do you think they did with the money? They repaired what they had left, didn't they? Why did they have to repair it? Because the U.S. came over and smashed it. Indeed.

You know, I'm willing to bet that not one of those families that lost a loved one on either side of that war would be appeased if they had all $627,482,629 to themselves. Come on man, it's a human life! Correction, over 30,000 human lives! That's just America's feeble attempt to atone for its actions. If Bin Laden gave America that much money, do you honestly believe the war would be over? That Bin Laden would walk on American soil as a free man, coming and going as he pleased?

[TopHatter]

but what do you think they did with the money? They repaired what they had left, didn't they?

Uh yeah , this was 1848 we're talking about. And their military had just played Ugly Girl at home on Prom Night to the United States' Drunken Frat Boy.

Why did they have to repair it? Because the U.S. came over and smashed it. Indeed.

Well shoot, guess what? Back then, nations were a little quicker to deal with problems right on their own borders with force of arms.

You know, I'm willing to bet that not one of those families that lost a loved one on either side of that war would be appeased if they had all $627,482,629 to themselves.

I'm willing to bet you're right. I'm also willing to bet that those families probably didn't get a much money - if any at all - to begin with

Come on man, it's a human life! Correction, over 30,000 human lives!

I'm well aware that it's a human life. I'm also not going to to explain the historical reasons for the war (they're in that link I supplied) nor defend the actions of politicians that lived in an entirely different era of thinking.

That's just America's feeble attempt to atone for its actions.

You speak about it as if it was yesterday.
And let me remind you that America didn't have to pay Mexico one red cent for that land. America was the victor. Mexico was the loser. To the victor goes the spoils.
Instead, the U.S. shelled out 15 million bucks for the LAND.
It had nothing to do with a "feeble attempt to atone for it's actions" as you put it.
It's actions were well in line with what was considered acceptable at that time.

If Bin Laden gave America that much money, do you honestly believe the war would be over? That Bin Laden would walk on American soil as a free man, coming and going as he pleased?

Give me a break. To say that you are comparing apples to oranges would be generous. And once again, you are speaking about it as if it happened yesterday. This was 1848 we are talking about. The world was a completely different place and societal mores were worlds away different from what we are used to.
The United States Army didn't waltz into Mexico and cheerfully slaughter thousands of Mexican civilians while chanting "Jesus Saves!".

[Snagglepuss]

Uh yeah , this was 1848 we're talking about. And their military had just played Ugly Girl at home on Prom Night to the United States' Drunken Frat Boy.

Urgh...Yeah, I don't get that one. Would you mind rephrasing it?

Well shoot, guess what? Back then, nations were a little quicker to deal with problems right on their own borders with force of arms.

Problems? What problems? The foreigners not having stolen enough land from the people that lived there in the first place? THAT problem?

I'm willing to bet you're right. I'm also willing to bet that those families probably didn't get a much money - if any at all - to begin with

Again, I can't understand what you're saying. I'm too slow...>.< Are you saying that those families didn't have a very good income to begin with? Or that they didn't get any compensation?

I'm well aware that it's a human life. I'm also not going to to explain the historical reasons for the war (they're in that link I supplied) nor defend the actions of politicians that lived in an entirely different era of thinking.

A border dispute. A simple little border dispute. Heck, U.S. Grant was in that war, and he described it as unholy! Maybe that was because of how diplomatic America was trying to be with every white person in the world, then sees the Mexicans having good land, and decides to station an army at Texas to provoke them into attacking. Or maybe it was because of America turning to diplomacy with Mexico AFTER 30,000 good men lost their lives. I can't believe today we're freaking out because of 2,000 dead for a just cause, and not even caring about the 30,000 thousand that died for land the U.S. could have purchased in the first place.

You speak about it as if it was yesterday.
And let me remind you that America didn't have to pay Mexico one red cent for that land. America was the victor. Mexico was the loser. To the victor goes the spoils.
Instead, the U.S. shelled out 15 million bucks for the LAND.
It had nothing to do with a "feeble attempt to atone for it's actions" as you put it.
It's actions were well in line with what was considered acceptable at that time.

It was acceptable at that time? Really? Because in the Constitution I read, having 30,000 men killed because of some land isn't at all acceptable.

"...America didn't have to pay Mexico one red cent for that land."

One red cent? Red with BLOOD?!

And once again, you are speaking about it as if it happened yesterday. This was 1848 we are talking about...The United States Army didn't waltz into Mexico and cheerfully slaughter thousands of Mexican civilians while chanting "Jesus Saves!".

No, but it DID take two years to realize it had so much money. $627,482,629 in current money was given to Mexico after the war. I'm assuming this money didn't magically poof here by the will of God, as a gift for warring with each other when I say, why didn't they use that BEFORE lives were lost? Come on, if a kid can figure it out, I'm sure a U.S. President could--no matter what time they lived in.

[Leader]

What the hell does the Mexican-American war have to do with this thread? American's live on that land now. Would you up root over a hundred million people to satisfy your self-righteous crap? This war is long over and forgotten. Take you're lefty blame American first nonsense to the history forum.

[THL]

I can't say what the land was valued at back then, but you generally don't see a victor laying out cash on the barrel for land that they've taken by force of arms

But you do see families getting compensation when a family member in the armed forces dies in combat, don't you?

Snaggle, I am not sure how what you have said relates to what TH said. Please explain this. He is mentioning that the US did not have to pay for that land as it was "won" in war. So are you saying that the US should also have paid for the Mexican lives lost? Is Iraq paying for US lives lost over there? If I am completely missing what you are saying (and I hope I am) please explain.

Why did they have to repair it? Because the U.S. came over and smashed it. Indeed.

War, honey. Survival of the fittest. The strong will survive. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The food chain. Winners prevail.
You may have heard of it all described as LIFE.
I am a Democrat and even I can figure this out.

If Bin Laden gave America that much money, do you honestly believe the war would be over? That Bin Laden would walk on American soil as a free man, coming and going as he pleased?

Don't forget that OBL is not the only reason we are at war. We are not over in Iraq, for example, looking for his sorry a$$. So if he were to hand the US a check for $600 million, would it end THE war...nope. Probably not.
But then again, we did not pay Mexico that money to end a war, the US did not make a purchase. We ended the war by winning and then paid that to Mexico "as a bonus".

[Leader]

"War, honey. Survival of the fittest. The strong will survive. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The food chain. Winners prevail.
You may have heard of it all described as LIFE.
I am a Democrat and even I can figure this out."

Coming along nicely aren't we. You'll be a hardcore right winger in no time. ;)

[THL]

"War, honey. Survival of the fittest. The strong will survive. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The food chain. Winners prevail.
You may have heard of it all described as LIFE.
I am a Democrat and even I can figure this out."

Coming along nicely aren't we. You'll be a hardcore right winger in no time. ;)

I won't do it. You can't make me do it. I'm not gonna do it.

I am a Democrat...I AM a Democrat...I am a Democrat...I am a Democrat

:)