Haezed

I appologize that i misread your post. You were praising Bush. That's two posters in a row! I stand humbled before you both. Now I"m confused. Iran would have been the closest call. I think the idea that we might have invaded Cuba is fanciful. The USA will survive the humiliation although much of the world has proven itself a bit thick. I agree that a real downside of this war was to establish the limits of US power. It's a pendulum. You may recall that GHB was disempowered, in part, because he did not finish Saddam off when he had the chance. You just can't please everyone. The rest of the world can stuff itself if it thinks that on balance the USA is "tainted." Recap: Saddam is out. That's a good thing. Iraqis have the chance for freedom. That's good. Limits of US projecting power has been reestablished post Vietnam: That might be good or bad depending on your POV. I thought the freedom fries were hilarious.

I want to believe this conclusion. If we honestly think the Iraqis can stand up without degenerating into genocide or without Iran destablizing the region or providing safe haven for terrorists, I agree we should withdraw. You are now blending into your argument our sunk costs which, as Bascule noted, should not be considered. True, but you've already argued that our action has been a success because we've given Iraqi's their freedom and they will be able to defend themselves without our aid. If we need to stay a bit longer to preserve the hard won victory, I'd say that is a judgment call.

We love all of you guys.

Gotta love the Brits! What I'm waiting for is for some Muslims to have the guts to have counterprotests - to march in support of Rushdi and against the nutcases.

Well, that's great, but shoving blame on this administration isn't going to be too fun after the next election. It's not a greatly productive exercise even now but if it gives you pleasure....

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

Care to elaborate since that was the question, kind of sort of, posed by the OP that very few want to consider? I've just got to laugh. It took you three words to skip past the question. I don't understand this sentence. I see those as the flip side of the same coin although failure can come in many forms and degrees. And failure means... what? Oh, right, you wouldn't say. Lots of words. No answer.

You SAY you are for a secure border but you ignore the part of my post that questions how you will make that happen. Remember, I argued: I think that is the only portion of my post that you ignored. If we genuinely had a secure border, with complete control, I don't think most would have quite they gripe they do with 12-20 million illegals. However, without border control, 12-20 million could be the tip of the floating glacier heading our way (which to make the analogy work I guess is on its side, but whatever). If 20 million can do it, it's not that hard. Our border is a joke and the only real risk is getting sent back. Big whoop. What did I do? Well, I was born here, was raised and had certain American values inculcated into me from birth. I've pledged my allegiance to this country probably ten thousand times. I do not have any foot in another country. This is my country. I'm an American for the same reasons Romans were Romans and Mexicans are Mexicans. Every nation state has to have some label for those who are part of their body politic. The name here is US Citizen. Without that label meaning something, the nation will not exist. Heh, okay, you appealed to pragmatism but I'll now agree that we're not getting anywhere and wait to see if you disagree with even this. Then, so what? If treatment of the Indians is ancient history who cares what our ancestors did? In any event, it is only because we "abused" the land that we could build a country illegals want to enter. Wrong. By way of example, a corporation is an artificial distinct entity but in practice it is made up of people. Same goes for any organization of humans into collective endeavors. Citizenship is what defines the membership in this countries body politic and it is not trivial. Have you ever attended a naturalization ceremody? They are powerful events and I beg to differ that the "ritual" is meaningless. I'm clueless as to what your proposal is. Eliminate the law pertaining to citizenship? Have various classes of people here? That's pretty much what we have now with current law except some of them are not classed because they snuck across the borders. Life's not fair. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but it's not. It's a given that those who are born here are going to be citizens. It is also a given that we cannot let everyone who wants to "earn" citizenship by breaking our laws and enter the country. That is just not practical in the long term. What limits would you impose on Mexican immigration? Any? Then what partitions would you create, if any? This doesn't rebut my argument. I said we should make a collective decision as to the number of new citizens we need and the number of temporary workers. If we need them, let them in legally perhaps from a variety of sources. If we need them, let's make them legal. If we don't, don't. I want to do more than punish employers. I want to sic thousands of hungry lawyers on them if they break the law. Would you allow them to remain citizens of Mexico? For someone who wants to eliminate welfare, you have a surprising confidence in the ability of government to categorize millions of people. So you'd agree we can deport them if they are caught crossing the border? Do you realize how complicated it would be to write what you are saying into a workable law? Would we use a point system to prove "establishment" in this country? Ten points if you coached youth soccer! Minus ten if the team wore Mexican uniforms! Again, you would require an incredible amount of beurocracy to decide this issue. Busted - for not reading any of my post. I never argued for a round up. No we haven't. That's just a poem writtten on a plaque during a time when we needed more laborers. Busted - for ignoring my three arguments for why this assumption might not hold true in this case. Busted - strawman. I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I just want to put a stop to the inflow by drying up the supply of jobs for illegals. How did the government ignore the Constitution? What provision are you talking about? I actually give illegals more credit than you do in one respect. I think they stay off of the grid and do not really use that many social services. On balance, they may contribute to the economy but that is not an argument for ILLEGAL immigration. We could get those benefits with legal immigration once we gain control of the situation. True, they will not have "earned" their citizenship by crossing the border but, as I suggested before, we could always make them don hoplite armor and fight it out on the plains of Nebraska.

As the worlds last superpower (for now), we are a target and need a secure border. Moreover, we have resources so we can talk about this whereas, say Brazil, could not. It does stand to reason that the longer a border, the more difficult, i.e. expensive, it will be to secure. I agree that it would be interesting to see what other countries spend on border security per mile.

If we created a private right of action for lawyers to pursue against employers hiring illegals, those jobs would dry up over night. This would probably work even without making the employment of an illegal alien a felony. Since these people are coming for jobs, I'm thinking without jobs to come to they will not come. As for those already here, I suspect many would go back to their families if they did not have employment here.

Absolutely we agree on this. It really chaps my backside when the word "immigration" is used interchangably with "illegal immigration." However, I wonder if it's possible to control the border until we reduce the flow to a trickle and that requires illegals not getting jobs. Once we stop the assault by MILLIONS on our border, we have a ghost in a chance of protecting our borders. Until then, no chance. How's this then: The culture we have now works while the one in Mexico does not. Let's let in 1 or 2 MILLION Mexicans into our country if we need the labor but there is no reason to let entire areas of our country be defined by their culture which has not succeeded on many levels. Alternatively, if we really believe we need 12-20 million from this one area of the world (for whatever reason), why not phase them in to see what impacts it has on our society before we just say "amnesty, now may we have another 20 million, please?"

They were smart enough not to include that intention in any provision of the Constitution. In fact, there is some distinction between the newly immigrated and natural born citizens which is why Henry Kissinger could never have been president. In any event, the founding fathers were dealing with a wide open frontier (in their mind anyway, which excluded the natives) just waiting for colonization. That has nothing to do with the current situation which is, no doubt, why the founding fathers did not enshrine any right to come into the country in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. When we were desparate for bodies to fill the continent from sea to shining sea, of course we bragged about how willing we were to accept new blood but none of this was enshrined in any principle which was intended to be enduring. I don't think I ever grounded my arguments on the intent of the founding fathers. That is one of the things that makes the country great but, again, I say what is the unique advantage of illegal immigrants. Why not make conscious decisions about who we want and where they come from? There is no argument made on this board for letting others make that decision. You do not respond to my argument about this assumption. This has been the case in the past but this is a different kettle of fish for many reasons, only three of which I listed. If the "door" is forever opened as a matter of constitutional law, then it isn't a door at all because it can never be shut.

I was choosing to ignore you.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. I would let them adopt children. We have enough kids in this country being raised by one parent without using this resource. Also, I'm tired of the parades. Let's just make them mainstream and forget about it.

That is why you have to dry up the jobs for illegals. Punish the employers and sic lawyers on them by creating a private right of action. This is very doable. The problem is that no one wants to offend the growing hispanic power base AND big business wants its labor. There is a perfect storm of political power. I repeat: Figure out how many legal immigrants we want and where we want them from (yes, that should be our decision, speaking of obvious facts) and make them legal. Dry up the reason for coming for the rest. It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand? I'm not sure who said "preserve our culture" but I do say that we have the right to determine when and if and from where we let immigrants come to this country. If our elected representatives want an open door, then so be it but that was never decided. We have the confluence of big business and liberals both wanting cheap labor and new voters. Differences abound with this wave: First, it is continuous. We have 12-20 million here now but nothing says that won't increase because, speaking of obvious, Mexico unlike any of the other countries we've accepted immigration from is on a contiguous porous border. This isn't prompted by a specific event, e.g. a potato famine, but by a question of supply and demand which will be ongoing and has very little limit. Second, the ability to keep a real connection to the homeland is much greater because again, this is a contiguous country without an ocean separating them from what was. They aren't like Cortez burning his ships when he reached S. America. They have a foot, and perhaps a very real allegiance, to both countries. If someone comes here legally, applies for citizenship, goes down to federal court and pledges allegiance to THIS country, I'll take them at their word. Otherwise, I make no assumptions. Third, they are able to hook up with an already existing political power base and thereby feel far more empowered than previous immigrants. They aren't stupid. They know they are the fastest growing minority in the country and may (I'm not sure, just showing why your assumption is merely an assumption) not feel as compelled to integrate into the larger culture. It is a mistake not to know history. It is also a mistake to assume that history will continually repeat itself. That is a comforting but fundamentally false notion. I'm not so sure this wave of illegal immigrants will mix into the culture as did others. That's an assumption on your part which may not apply to immigration from a contiguous country. Personally, I don't know but would feel better IF we need to import labor, taking it from varied sources. I agree this is not a great argument. We should figure out how many LEGAL immigrants we need and then let them in LEGALLY. Get them registered. Hell, even be picky. Let them in on our terms and get the labor we need. Don't however, let employers hire illegals. Then you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. We don't have waves of Canadians illegally entering the country. It's not just that we are protecting line on the map. Letting millions into a country when you don't know who they are is a recipe for disaster. If you simply legalize 12-20 million, then millions more will come and the problem repeats itself as it has before.

Naw, let's just be snotty to each other. It's so much more fun.

You'll accept all that Kean has to say on this subject? I guess you disagree with the other poster that the report was a hack job? In context, was Kean really supporting a conspiracy theory? That would be news to me. I think what he was saying is that certain individuals did some CYA after the fact. Hardly surprising and in no way proof of a conspiracy theory. Besides, you dodge my question: What is your theory? Did the 9/11 attackers simply not exist? Were the planes emptied, the passengers disappeared and the planes remote controlled into the buildings? Did the US government know the plot was going to happen and time a demolition to coincide with the attacks so the buildings would fall? Not sure why the buildings falling is such a big deal, but I'd at least like to know what the theory is so we can test it for reasonability.

Let's take a look to see the peer reviewed journals you cite: Vol. 12. 1. Laura Manwell, Ph.D. Candidate Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Guelph, speaks glowingly of the 9/11 "truth movement." Doesn't sound like someone with an open mind to me. 2. Doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed journal either. The only title in the bunch is an architect. Do you know how many architects there are in the world? 3. Nope. This is a letter not a journal. Jenkins appears to be with the "Hazardous Waste Identification Division." Impressive. 4. Nope. Another letter by Jenkins. Is Vol. 11 any better? Why don't you just pick the single one of these articles that is published in a peer reviewed journal?

For purposes of future discussion, let's all just assume that the West is at fault for every problem in the world. Now what?

Just so I understand, how do conspiracy theorists get around the detailed and respected 9/11 commission report which details how the 9/11 attackers came into the country, gathered their resources, and then attacked? Is the theory that they were US government agents? Was Osama also in our pocket when he claimed credit for the attacks? I guess that's why we never found him?!

One of the points made in the article I cited is that the structure wouldn't have had to melt to have been weakened by the fire along with assorted over stresses.

These explanations seem completely compelling to my lay eye. Oh, I see that this article was already "debunked" by a conspiracy web rag. Let me ask a question: Can anyone cite to a single scientific peer reviewed article that supports the conspiracy POV? A laundry list of architects is meaningless as it constitutes probably .00001% of the architects in the world. I'd like to see peer reviewed science; in fact, I'd fully expect it to be demanded on this board.

The key word here is "guess." I'm not sure how such guesses are helpful. I'm tempted to stipulate that the entire world's problems are entirely the fault of the United States just so we can start talking about solutions.

I don't think that was her point at all but she can speak for herself.

There is a tendency to view other countries as, well, really not made of people with the same responsibilities and free will over their actions as have people in the US. They are simply objects which move hither and thither depending whatever nefarious US policy we are discussing. We can play the "could have/should have" game with history all day long and never get it right. Should the Ottoman empire joined the Central powers in WWI? What would the Middle East look like today if the Ottomans had joined with Britain, France and the US? Should Iran have more clearly aligned itself with the allied powers in WWII? Should Iran have nationalized the oil industry that Britain helped develop? Neil Ferguson is a well known economic historian at Harvard who consults with the altnerate history game "Making History." This isn't an advertisement for the game which I think I may get for Father's day. It's simply a recognition that the blame game on the US isn't simply useless, it is simple as well.