CA Caravan Continues to Move North to U.S.

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Boy, sure got quiet around this whole caravan and "invasion".....

[billvon 2,379]

>Boy, sure got quiet around this whole caravan and "invasion".....

The next time Trump needs a hammer we will hear about it again; never fear.

"The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Boy does this thread ever show how incredibly gullible Trump supporters are. A near zero ability to think for themselves.

Never mind that a US President just used the military domestically to stoke fear among its population for purely political purposes.

[billvon 2,379]

>We are preparing to handle the influx appropriately.

By . . . . withdrawing the "prop" troops before the caravan arrives.

Nothing says what you think of our troops like using them for your own political theater. (Well, and of course refusing to honor their sacrifices because your hair might get wet.)

==========================
Troops at U.S.-Mexican border to start coming home

All the troops should be home by Christmas - Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan

By WESLEY MORGAN 11/19/2018
Politico

The 5,800 troops who were rushed to the southwest border amid President Donald Trump’s pre-election warnings about a refugee caravan will start coming home as early as this week — just as some of those migrants are beginning to arrive.

Democrats and Republicans have criticized the deployment as a ploy by the president to use active-duty military forces as a prop to try to stem Republican losses in this month’s midterm elections.

. . .

All the troops should be home by Christmas, as originally expected, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said in an interview Monday.

"Our end date right now is 15 December, and I've got no indications from anybody that we'll go beyond that," said Buchanan, who leads the land forces of U.S. Northern Command.
=============================
U.S. Army North issued a brief statement insisting that “no specific timeline for redeployment has been determined.”

[billvon 2,379]

A good take on this from two Army veterans and a senior White House official.

Trump is a national embarrassment.
=====================================
Trump’s Border Stunt Is a Profound Betrayal of Our Military

The president used America’s military not against any real threat but as toy soldiers, with the intent of manipulating a domestic midterm election.

By Gordon Adams, Lawrence B. Wilkerson and Isaiah Wilson III
Nov. 19, 2018

A week before the midterm elections, the president of the United States announced he would deploy up to 15,000 active duty military troops to the United States-Mexico border to confront a menacing caravan of refugees and asylum seekers. The soldiers would use force, if necessary, to prevent such an “invasion” of the United States.

Mr. Trump’s announcement and the deployment that followed (of roughly 5,900) were probably perfectly legal. But we are a bipartisan threesome with decades of experience in and with the Pentagon, and to us, this act creates a dangerous precedent. We fear this was lost in the public hand-wringing over the decision, so let us be clear: The president used America’s military forces not against any real threat but as toy soldiers, with the intent of manipulating a domestic midterm election outcome, an unprecedented use of the military by a sitting president.

The public debate focused on secondary issues. Is there truly a threat to American security from an unarmed group of tired refugees and asylum seekers on foot and a thousand miles from the border? Even the Army’s internal assessment did not find this a very credible threat.

Can the president deny in advance what could be legitimate claims for asylum, without scrutiny? Most likely, this violates treaty commitments the United States made as part of its agreement to refugee conventions in 1967, which it has followed for decades.

. . .

James Mattis, the secretary of defense, asserted that the Defense Department does not “do stunts.” But this was a blatant political stunt. The president crossed a line — the military is supposed to stay out of domestic politics. As many senior military retirees have argued, the forces are not and should not be a political instrument. They are not toy soldiers to be moved around by political leaders but a neutral institution, politically speaking.

Oh, some might say, presidents use troops politically all the time. And so they do, generally in the context of foreign policy decisions that have political implications. Think Lyndon Johnson sending more troops to Vietnam, fearing he would be attacked for “cutting and running” from that conflict. Or George W. Bush crowing about “mission accomplished” when Saddam Hussein was toppled. Those are not the same thing as using troops at home for electoral advantage.

Electoral gain, not security, is this president’s goal. Two of us served in the military for many years; while all troops must obey the legal and ethical orders of civilian leaders, they need to have faith that those civilian leaders are using them for legitimate national security purposes. But the border deployment put the military right in the middle of the midterm elections, creating a nonexistent crisis to stimulate votes for one party.

When partisan actions like this occur, they violate civil-military traditions and erode that faith, with potentially long-term damage to the morale of the force and our democratic practice — all for electoral gain.

The deployment is a stunt, a dangerous one, and in our view, a misuse of the military that should have led Mr. Mattis to consider resigning, instead of acceding to this blatant politicization of America’s military.
=================

[rushmc 18]

I just read a story where a person in the US illegally claimed they have the same rights as a US citizen.

Bullshit.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,901]

rushmc

I just read a story where a person in the US illegally claimed they have the same rights as a US citizen.

Bullshit.

It's a little known fact that non US citizen humans are people under US law.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 619]

Unless they're reporters and there are hundreds of billion$ on the line.

[Phil1111 901]

rushmc

I just read a story where a person in the US illegally claimed they have the same rights as a US citizen.

Bullshit.

The Deepfake
https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2018-2019/the-deepfake
AI-manipulated video has become so sophisticated that words can literally be put into people's mouths...and it's virtually impossible to tell the difference. Mark Kelley explores how it's done and its profound implications. It's not all fun and games, however. The U.S. Defence Department is looking at how to protect itself against the "weaponization" of this creation.

I think you mean that US residents can be killed by the Saudi kingdom. Just as they did on 9/11. Then escape with impunity because filthy Saudi oil money and its lobby owns US politicians.

"Khashoggi was living in the United States on an “O” visa, according to his employer the Washington Post. Also known as the “genius” visa, the O offers individuals of “extraordinary ability and achievement” temporary residence for up to three years. Three of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens, and he is believed to have been applying for a legal permanent residence in the US, also known as a green card."
https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khashoggi-under-us-law-and-constitution/

[billvon 2,379]

Quote

I just read a story where a person in the US illegally claimed they have the same rights as a US citizen. Bullshit.

Perhaps not telegraphing your hatred of the US Constitution so clearly would be a good move.