Timothy Birdnow

Having a fight on Facebook with an Australian Latino over illegal immigration.

Here is the thread:

Daniel Romero says:

Probably wouldn’t be fleeing their home countries if America hadn’t destabilised the whole Latin American region in order to exploit their resources and further advance their political agenda, but hey - boo "illegal immigrants”

Oh wait, weren’t all the boat people coming to Australia from countries that America destabilised in the early 2000’s for a war that was fought on false pretence and only served to advance American interests.

I retort:

Yawn. That was a nice rant Daniel Romero but you have no evidence to back it up - like a typical leftist kook.

Daniel Romero snarles back:

Timothy Birdnow did I scare you with my Latino sounding last name? Don’t worry, I’m Australian and have no plan to join your "illegals”

Also I actually vote for the right.

I support our current right wing government and your previously republican presidents (Bush and Trump) so I’m far from the left.

But wouldn’t expect any less of a comment from someone like yourself.

Let me guess, you also probably think America is the #1 country in the world but yet in every meaningful metric you are far from #1.

No doubt the democrats will be contributing factors for the downward spiral that America is so rapidly on, but the egotistical attitudes of Americans like you are what will truly bring the country down.

Oh and if you want evidence, there’s plenty of it. Most of it actually released by your own government agencies.

He’s a brief timeline of some;

https://apnews.com/article/2ded14659982426c9b2552827734be83

I retort:

Daniel Romero you say:

"Timothy Birdnow did I scare you with my Latino sounding last name? Don’t worry, I’m Australian and have no plan to join your "illegals”"

Well I'm glad of that! We don't need another entitled Latino invading our country without permission. And I'm not "scared" of your Latino name - this proves you are a narcissist who thinks everything is all about you. Get over yourself.

And while we may have some common ground you clearly don't believe in the Rule of Law or understand the first thing about it. I doubt you really are on the right in any meaningful way.

Your rant about my patriotism is not worth comment. You need to grow up.

So you provide a link to an AP article and that proves your point? Hardly. That is exactly what a good leftist would do.

Yes, the U.S. has intervened in Latin America and made mistakes. But why did we intervene? We kicked a communist out of Chile, for example. I suppose you think it would have been better to have a Soviet puppet state in South America? I guess the people of Chile would have been better off like Cuba or Venezuela?

I guess you would have preferred the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, or the communists in El Salvador?

Yeah; the people would starve and the gulags would be full but they would have great healthcare! Right.

We did not "exploit" any of these countries for their "resources". We didn't get squat out of them.

And if you bothered to do any research on the subject you would know that today most of the "refugees" who are trying to get into the U.S. admit they are coming "for a better life" - not for safety or stability. They know if they can get past the border they will probably be home free and can then access all of the benefits of America.

Belize and Mexico have both offered asylum to these "refugees" who have turned it down. If you weren't an intellectual lightweight you would know that.

And as for your idiotic comment about "Let me guess, you also probably think America is the #1 country in the world but yet in every meaningful metric you are far from #1." No. But what are YOU doing but indulging in America bashing? And why? Seems someone has a little inferiority complex.

Again, you show shallow thinking. You claim we went into Afghanistan over "weapons of mass destruction" when in fact we did no such thing. We went into Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden murdered 3000 American citizens and Afghanistan's radical Muslim Taliban protected Bin Laden after having given his organization sanctuary. I guess those dead Americans don't matter to you.

Perhaps you missed it Mr. Romero, but last time I checked Australia was part of the "coalition of the willing" and helped the U.S. in this "destabilizing".

How have the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan "advanced America's interests"? We sunk titanic sums of our own money into them for no thanks, and what did we get? Do we control the Iraqi oil fields? A bunch of dimwits claimed that was why were went into Iraq, but we never made a dine off them. Didn't need to; we have our own oil. We didn't profit from any other aspect of these invasions either.

You have no argument, just a lot of anger and resentment. You need to learn a few facts before spouting off with such tripe.

Daniel Romero Let's take a little review of the timeline in that AP story, shall we?

1846: The United States invades Mexico and captures Mexico City in 1847.

Yes, but we invaded because Mexico was massing troops on the Texas border and was itself preparing to invade America. I guess you missed that in your history class. Everyone thought Mexico would beat the tar out of the U.S. in that war too. Our "intervention" was not a powerful country picking on a Latin one but a powerful Latin country trying to bully us.

And the U.S. did take a large swath of northern Mexican territory, but so what? Mexico had no claim on that land except that it was part of the original Spanish colonial territory. There were few if any settlements in much of it.  And California wanted out of Mexico and were all too happy to join the U.S.

It should also be pointed out that the U.S. paid Mexico for this land (and much later bought a large swath of southern Arizona - the Gadsden purchase - which Mexico happily sold us.)

1903: The U.S. engineers Panamanian independence from Colombia and gains sovereign rights over the zone where the Panama Canal would connect Atlantic and Pacific shipping routes.

Yes we did and if we owe anyone an apology it is Columbia. But Panama was happy to be rid of Columbian rule and they owe their independence to our protection.

1903: Cuba and the U.S. sign a treaty allowing near-total U.S. control of Cuban affairs. U.S. establishes a naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

We signed a treaty in which we guaranteed Cuba's independence. Spain wanted it back. I guess the AP writer didn't understand that. We did not have "near total control of Cuban affairs" I might add. That is editorializing.

1914: U.S. troops occupy the Mexican port of Veracruz for seven months in an attempt to sway developments in the Mexican Revolution.

Woodrow Wilson - himself a particularly nasty leftie who pushed world government - gave the order because he did not see the revolutionary government as the legitimate government of Mexico and because the new socialist government a.detained U.S. soldiers in the Tampico Affair and b.violated the ban on weapons trading with the German Empire, who were supplying them with guns (no doubt with the intent of the Mexicans using them against the U.S. to keep us out of any upcoming war.)

All the rest of the cases cited in this article involved communist takeovers or potential takeovers of countries in our hemisphere and we were in the middle of the Cold War. Or I guess you would advocate we not resist the Soviet Union?

Again, none of this shows any great financial benefit to the U.S. as you claim.

Nice try though.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1329 words, total size 8 kb.