and folks say Trump's use of tear gas to protect the border was over the top.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=spartanntp

Hi Tom, well Pauline is noted for her stance on border protection and stopping the invasion of undesirables from other places, so nothing new or startling here. We Australian people value our culture too and keep our border protection strong. We don't condone the killing, if in fact he is dead, there are some conflicting news articles on that. The americans action's were unwise, whatever his motives, but then americans are always popping up where they are unwanted without invitation. Anyway your article comes from Fox, not the most objective source. I would see this as Hanson's opening shot in the coming election campaign, once again delineating her stance on border protection and immigration

I believe Trump is right in protecting your borders too, you have a right to say who comes into your country and to turn people away, whatever their circumstance.

Quote:

---

Anyway your article comes from Fox, not the mot objective source.

---

What is an "objective source" ? Was anything reported untrue? You sound like American libs who condemn Fox without acknowledging the biases of their sources . I try not to use Fox as a source on this site because I always end up arguing against this silly non sequitur. I could choose many other links like this ABC report that says essentially the same thing . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-...tribe/10558982


Yes Trump is right to protect the border ,and to use restraint like Obama did when he defended the border . At least 80 times without a peep of protest from the media the left regurgitates .https://www.newsweek.com/obama-admin...p-data-1233255

Right now Tijuana is being overwhelmed by these people who were sold a pipe dream by the Soros NGOs that sponsored their silly caravans . He should be providing for them on their return trip to Honduras .

Tear gas usage at the border by year according to the border patrol:
2012: 26 times
2013: 27 times
2014: 15 times
2015: 8 times
2016: 3 times
2017: 18 times
2018: 1 time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What is an "objective source" ? Was anything reported untrue? You sound like American libs who condemn Fox without acknowledging the biases of their sources . I try not to use Fox as a source on this site because I always end up arguing against this silly non sequitur. I could choose many other links like this ABC report that says essentially the same thing . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-...tribe/10558982

---

Yes the article also the article also contains a government spokesperson endorsing the Indian policy of keeping unwanted persons away. I will not support the actions of the American just because he is Christian, his actions were unwise and illegal and hanson is right for saying so

Quote:

---

Yes Trump is right to protect the border ,and to use restraint like Obama did when he defended the border . At least 80 times without a peep of protest from the media the left regurgitates .https://www.newsweek.com/obama-admin...p-data-1233255

---

Unruly mobs who fault laws have to be controlled and tear gas is a non lethal control measure

Quote:

---

Right now Tijuana is being overwhelmed by these people who were sold a pipe dream by the Soros NGOs that sponsored their silly caravans . He should be providing for them on their return trip to Honduras .

---

No argument from me

Quote:

---

but then americans are always popping up where they are unwanted without invitation.

---

Yeah, like during WW2 when we protected your rear ends from Japanese invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yeah, like during WW2 when we protected your rear ends from Japanese invasion.

---

And you like to revise history so you appear the saviours. You "defended" Australia because it was convenient, you wanted a base, if the japs hadn't raided Pearl Harbour and kicked you out of the Philippines, you wouldn't have given a damn, just as you didn't give a damn about Europe. You fought the Japs in the Pacific, while we stopped them in Papua New Guinea, so spare me the rhetoric because what you did in WWII doesn't buy you anything here. Emperor MacArthur wasn't well liked here. You should have sunk Japan instead of chumming up with them and put some money into improving our industries instead of theirs

Quote:

---

And you like to revise history so you appear the saviours. You "defended" Australia because it was convenient, you wanted a base, if the japs hadn't raided Pearl Harbour and kicked you out of the Philippines, you wouldn't have given a damn, just as you didn't give a damn about Europe. You fought the Japs in the Pacific, while we stopped them in Papua New Guinea, so spare me the rhetoric because what you did in WWII doesn't buy you anything here. Emperor MacArthur wasn't well liked here. You should have sunk Japan instead of chumming up with them and put some money into improving our industries instead of theirs.

---

You're welcome.

The Japanese never really considered an invasion of Australia because Tojo opposed it . Instead they opted to isolate the Aussies from the US. Their plans to do that was thwarted by the US Navy action in the Coral Sea. The defense of New Guinea was a joint effort of Aussie and US troops. The critical point was the Coral Sea engagements and the defense of

Port Moresby and Milne Bay. The Aussies have participated in every war effort we have been involved in since WWI (WWII ,Korea ,Vietnam ,the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan) ; so I would not discount their efforts .

Quote:

---

so I would not discount their efforts .

---

I agree completely, and consider them to be a valued friend and ally. I do think that sentiment should be on both sides.

Let's put it this way . You've seen the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns . The town is under threat constantly by the bad guys .Then one day Clint Eastwood comes riding into town . The town folks recruit him to clean up the town. They need him .But at the same time they fear him.

That is the situation with the US and many of our allies . They have US bases on their territory out of necessity . The US does not have bases of Aussie troops,or any of our other allies defending us. There is where the resentment comes from.

Until this year there weren't any US troops in Aussie . But now Marines are stationed in Darwin;and they will be there by agreement until 2040. Some question the need ;but it is clear that Aussie is beginning to recognize the threat the Chinese pose to their national interests .(there was a CIA base for some time at Pine Gap )

The marines are not there for our protection but as part of your forward deployment "pivot to Asia" besides it is an opportunity to train in different terrain. You have had bases here for some time with naval units using Fremantle and we have cooperated with you in freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. We have a treaty with you, the ANZUS Pact, which means operationally we need to be familiar with each other.

China is an important trading partner, the threat to our national interests lies in the standoff between China and the US as well as increasing influence among the small nations of the Pacific. We have a different view of China and don't see the need for the sort of confrontation you revel in

I'm all for pulling out of many of our commitments and telling those people to get off their rear ends and defend themselves. We can't afford to protect the entire world, especially when so much of it results in whining and complaining. You are free to have any view of China you want, but we all know who you will call for if you turn out to be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm all for pulling out of many of our commitments and telling those people to get off their rear ends and defend themselves. We can't afford to protect the entire world, especially when so much of it results in whining and complaining. You are free to have any view of China you want, but we all know who you will call for if you turn out to be wrong.

---

We will only turn out to be wrong when you stir them enough for open conflict, it is a tried and true strategy of the military-industrial complex. It worked well in 1941 and Japan attacked you bringing you into WWII and the war profits escalated. China knows it can achieve more by trade than war, but like you, they are paranoid

Quote:

---

We will only turn out to be wrong when you stir them enough for open conflict

---

Ah the joy of always being able to blame your problems on someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Ah the joy of always being able to blame your problems on someone else.

---

They are not our problems, we don't have problems with them, but apparently that bellicose idiot who claims to be President does, and so he will conduct a beggar my neighbour policy, and for what? so government motors can export some vehicles they don't want? I know intellectual property is an issue, easily fixed by slapping import restrictions on any product for which technology has been stolen. Isolationism is a wonderful thing and we could all benefit from the US becoming an island, but we don't need your dictating what we can or cannot do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1X97qC4Ues

Quote:

---

They are not our problems, we don't have problems with them, but apparently that bellicose idiot who claims to be President does, and so he will conduct a beggar my neighbour policy, and for what? so government motors can export some vehicles they don't want? I know intellectual property is an issue, easily fixed by slapping import restrictions on any product for which technology has been stolen. Isolationism is a wonderful thing and we could all benefit from the US becoming an island, but we don't need your dictating what we can or cannot do.

---

Perfect example of why the U.S. should pull out of many of its defense agreements. No gratitude. We should pull out and leave a sign reading, "If you need help, call France."

Don't worry China will fill any vacuum you leave. we just took delivery of our flying bricks, hope we don't need to use them

"Flying bricks"?

F35 short range fighters