Jump to content
CatfishKev

Do we really need a border wall?

Do we really need a wall?  

100 members have voted

  1. 1. With the shutdown going can't help but wonder what opinions are of the subject. A wall could work maybe but would a lot of Border Agents lose jobs? On a smaller scale you might still have to consider wildlife such as Jaguars. What do you guys think is the best approach?

    • Build a giant physical wall.
      56
    • A high tech wall With more sensors, night vision cams and blimps similar to what we have in Sierra Vista, supported by more Border agents
      38
    • Hire more Border Agents
      6


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Non-Typical Solutions said:

Can you see and country ran like California, Chicago, NY, NJ, New Orleans? California has had several bad shootings and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  I read some of the post after her town hall meeting one stated that mass shootings and a high murder rate is unique to the US, there are 6 or 7 developed countries that rate above the US and none of them have the firearms or civilian ownership that we do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 452b264 said:

Can you see and country ran like California, Chicago, NY, NJ, New Orleans? California has had several bad shootings and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  I read some of the post after her town hall meeting one stated that mass shootings and a high murder rate is unique to the US, there are 6 or 7 developed countries that rate above the US and none of them have the firearms or civilian ownership that we do.  

She is flat looney her and the Cortez in New York.........those folks make me scratch my bald head!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Non-Typical Solutions said:

She is flat looney her and the Cortez in New York.........those folks make me scratch my bald head!!!!

Ask both of them  to have a debate with John Lott and Eric Pratt and watch which ones show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Roosevelt Mark said:

A gun is alot different then a wall or a stock..

The point is, a can of worms will be opened as it has been with banning a product that was legally purchased in the Great U.S.A.. " stocks".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, firstcoueswas80 said:

In some places, you are 100% correct, a wall would be worthless. However, what about the the say 40 miles east and west of the Baboquivari mountains that are 100% wide open? A little Normandy style barrier to keep cars out, and a 4 strand barn wire fence is literally all we have protecting our country. 

In the place you described, you are also 100% correct.  That sounds like a great place for a wall or some other significant physical barrier.  Your idea makes a lot of sense because it's based on the geographic realities of our border, is strategic, and is well-explained.   

But a wall from sea to shining sea?  I don't think that makes sense or is in any way practical for a myriad of reasons.  And having the whole shebang financed by the Mexican government?  I think he knew that wasn't true when he said it.

But in the end, I think we agree.  The answer can't be to do nothing.  So build the wall where it makes sense.  Don't do it where it doesn't make sense. 

P.S.  I got my CWT.com shirt order in just in time.  Thank you Amanda!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not knowing the engineering aspects of the wall. Would a wall be successful in an area without patrols where they could use their stereotypical shoveling skills to go under a wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a moat filled with pirana and alligators?  Every  LIBERACAL gets misty eyed  when some ILEGAL immigrant tries to swim in and drowns on the Rio or the Yuma canal or dies of heat exposure in our deserts. But none tears up for our troops when  they get blown up    by a suicide bomber or other fanatic while defending other countries freedom in some sand blown shoot hole.  .  Idea, lets pull our troops out of these ungrateful countries and have  then protect ours?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout the government takes position(BLM, national forest, purchase from land owners) of 100 yards of borderland this side of the border and make it a military installation. place placards like any other base that trespassers will be shot. Do it in several languages so nobody is excluded. Then make good on the promise of said warning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ctafoya said:

How bout the government takes position(BLM, national forest, purchase from land owners) of 100 yards of borderland this side of the border and make it a military installation. place placards like any other base that trespassers will be shot. Do it in several languages so nobody is excluded. Then make good on the promise of said warning. 

If they shot a few tomorrow the point would be made. Law suits, media, hate, and resignations would also happen but it’d stop some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article on the ability for the president to build the wall using the military and no need for emergency declaration.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/29/watch-defense-official-nothing-stopping-trump-from-authorizing-military-to-build-border-wall/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation is reminding me of the French Defense against the germans in WWII.  Of course we are not the french.   Taken from Wiki.  

The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations built by France in the 1930s to deter invasion by Germany and force them to move around the fortifications. Constructed on the French side of its borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg, the line did not extend to the English Channel due to French strategy that envisioned a move into Belgium to counter a German assault.

Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts extolled the Line as a work of genius that would deter German aggression, because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilise and counterattack.

The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, including aerial bombings and tank fire, and had underground railways as a backup; it also had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, supplying air conditioning and eating areas for their comfort.[1] Instead of attacking directly, the Germans invaded through the Low Countries, bypassing the Line to the north. French and British officers had anticipated this: when Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium, they carried out plans to form an aggressive front that cut across Belgium and connected to the Maginot Line. However, the French line was weak near the Ardennes forest. The French believed this region, with its rough terrain, would be an unlikely invasion route of German forces; if it was traversed, it would be done at a slow rate that would allow the French time to bring up reserves and counterattack. The German Army, having reformulated their plans from a repeat of the First World War-era plan, became aware of and exploited this weak point in the French defensive front. A rapid advance through the forest and across the River Meuse encircled much of the Allied forces, resulting in a sizeable force being evacuated at Dunkirk leaving the forces to the south unable to mount an effective resistance to the German invasion of France.[2]

The line has since become a metaphor for expensive efforts that offer a false sense of security.[3]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, idgaf said:

This conversation is reminding me of the French Defense against the germans in WWII.  Of course we are not the french.   Taken from Wiki.  

The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations built by France in the 1930s to deter invasion by Germany and force them to move around the fortifications. Constructed on the French side of its borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg, the line did not extend to the English Channel due to French strategy that envisioned a move into Belgium to counter a German assault.

Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts extolled the Line as a work of genius that would deter German aggression, because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilise and counterattack.

The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, including aerial bombings and tank fire, and had underground railways as a backup; it also had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, supplying air conditioning and eating areas for their comfort.[1] Instead of attacking directly, the Germans invaded through the Low Countries, bypassing the Line to the north. French and British officers had anticipated this: when Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium, they carried out plans to form an aggressive front that cut across Belgium and connected to the Maginot Line. However, the French line was weak near the Ardennes forest. The French believed this region, with its rough terrain, would be an unlikely invasion route of German forces; if it was traversed, it would be done at a slow rate that would allow the French time to bring up reserves and counterattack. The German Army, having reformulated their plans from a repeat of the First World War-era plan, became aware of and exploited this weak point in the French defensive front. A rapid advance through the forest and across the River Meuse encircled much of the Allied forces, resulting in a sizeable force being evacuated at Dunkirk leaving the forces to the south unable to mount an effective resistance to the German invasion of France.[2]

The line has since become a metaphor for expensive efforts that offer a false sense of security.[3]

 

OK, thanks Nancy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Edge said:

OK, thanks Nancy

Whatever because I think enforcing the current rules would actually work.  And I choose to look at history as guideline. I'll take the Pepsi challenge anytime on conservative beliefs against you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×