Problems with illegal immigration.

[Indofred]

Sure. Congressional approval for the use of force against saddam, and the fact that our forces have already withdrawn from that country.

You mean it was legal because your people said it was.

That's right, according to the only authority that mattered.

So attacks on anyone is fine if the US says so.

Fine business.

Moron.

 

[Indofred]

It would have been legal if it hadn't been based on lies.

Then you agree it was legal, or you don't understand the word 'lies.'

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiqs_ZxDiXM&feature=related]Bush Declares War! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM]Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Bush lied.

Even the CIA admit it.

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored - CNN

 

[Noomi]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

 

[Indofred]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

Nail on head.

Both sets are equally wrong but one is condemned while the other is applauded.

 

[Unkotare]

You mean it was legal because your people said it was.

That's right, according to the only authority that mattered.

So attacks on anyone is fine if the US says so.

.

When you cut through all the bullshit, that's what it comes down to until or unless another country is strong enough to change it. If your impotence frustrates you, that's your fucking problem.

 

[Unkotare]

america blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all.

wrong

 

[Unkotare]

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'.

NO, when someone or some group deliberately targets civilians in order to inspire fear as a means of promoting their political goals, they are rightly called terrorists. When America liberates millions from a brutal, murderous dictatorship, it's called liberating.

 

[Indofred]

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'.

NO, when someone or some group deliberately targets civilians in order to inspire fear as a means of promoting their political goals, they are rightly called terrorists. When America liberates millions from a brutal, murderous dictatorship, it's called liberating.

Would targeting civilians from a CIA bomber be included in that?

Look at your history.

 

[Indofred]

That's right, according to the only authority that mattered.

So attacks on anyone is fine if the US says so.

.

When you cut through all the bullshit, that's what it comes down to until or unless another country is strong enough to change it. If your impotence frustrates you, that's your fucking problem.

That's handy.
You're saying the US is the playground bully.

Nice. Try an attack on Iran and see what China does.
If you government has the balls.
I think not.

 

[Unkotare]

Nice. Try an attack on Iran and see what China does.

China wouldn't do anything. They're not stupid.

 

[SW2SILVER]

What happened in Iraq is not relevant to the immigration thread. BUT, since people are segueing in that direction...The Bush Administration needed proof of WMD's, and they never got it. THAT was the major flaw in the logic behind the war. No proof= no reason to invade. And, it should be that simple . Was the War in Iraq "illegal"? Define "illegal". Like, for instance, the difference between a legitimate immigrant and an "illegal" undocumented alien. It's getting harder and harder to tell right from wrong anymore with all the bulspit flying around. I love you folks on this board, some of ya obfuscate and make things harder than they are. It's like the illegal alien thing. They shouldn't be here. They are harming this country, and only those poor deluded souls that are living in elitistvile far far away from these pesky invaders seem to LOVE to protect illegal immigrants like some kind of endangered species. All they have to do is legally immigrate. THAT SIMPLE. But...noo. Make things all complicated. Have a nice day, peeps.

 

[Indofred]

What happened in Iraq is not relevant to the immigration thread. BUT, since people are segueing in that direction...The Bush Administration needed proof of WMD's, and they never got it. THAT was the major flaw in the logic behind the war. No proof= no reason to invade. And, it should be that simple . Was the War in Iraq "illegal"?

Define "illegal". ,.

In this case, knowing there were no such weapons.
It's pretty clear the US and UK governments were aware but ignored it..

If you dispute my assertion, say so and I'll post links later but I have less than enough time at the moment,
First day at full time school for my daughter and my first day back at work with all the kids around so it's going to be a busy one.
My mum will kill me if I don't get a picture of the kid in her new school uniform.
Come to think of it, my wife will be less than please as well.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

America blew the crap out of Afghanistan for plenty of good reasons.

 

[Indofred]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

America blew the crap out of Afghanistan for plenty of good reasons.

An attack on the US by a Saudi citizen?
Perhaps you could ask Bush senior what the attacks happened. After all Ex president Bush was having lunch with Bin Laden's brother the day before the towers went down.

 

[Artevelde]

The main issue about illegal immigration is that it is, well ... illegal and thus a crime. Illegal immigrants violate the law and should be treated accordingly. Period.

I won't try to act as if illegals haven't broken an established law. But I will argue that the law is corrupt and unjust. For a poor Mexican citizen with no resources, legal immigration is far too difficult to figure out. The US favors educated immigrants from Europe, Canada, and Asia when allowing immigration. What happened to the American Dream? What about the idea that American Rights are given by God and not by any government?

When it all boils down to it, unless you served in the military (or have a loved one who is doing so) or personally went through the legal immigration process, you have done nothing to be more deserving of citizenship than any Mexican.

So how many hundreds of millions of immigrants would you like to let into the US because they come from a poorer country?

 

[Artevelde]

I won't try to act as if illegals haven't broken an established law. But I will argue that the law is corrupt and unjust. For a poor Mexican citizen with no resources, legal immigration is far too difficult to figure out. The US favors educated immigrants from Europe, Canada, and Asia when allowing immigration. What happened to the American Dream? What about the idea that American Rights are given by God and not by any government?

When it all boils down to it, unless you served in the military (or have a loved one who is doing so) or personally went through the legal immigration process, you have done nothing to be more deserving of citizenship than any Mexican.

This is a dangerous door you are opening, if we should just let anyone come to this country because they have no resources and come from poor countries we will be flooded with immigrants from every third world nation on the planet.

You mean the same "dangerous door" that worked for a century? That our Forefathers believed in? The only dangerous door we've opened is the door where we take care of everyone. If we let anyone in, and tried to take care of their every need without taxing them, we would fail. If we put our foot down and stopped giving out welfare checks, people would either start working or leave. There are only two reasons people come here. I don't support people coming here to receive welfare and not be taxed. I 100% support letting in a person who has a desire to work.

So an extra 1 billion people immigrating into the US would be OK for you?

 

[High_Gravity]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

America blew the crap out of Afghanistan for plenty of good reasons.

An attack on the US by a Saudi citizen?
Perhaps you could ask Bush senior what the attacks happened. After all Ex president Bush was having lunch with Bin Laden's brother the day before the towers went down.

Yeah ok.

 

[Artevelde]

You're a moron who missed out on the first half of the conversation. I was only pointing out why our existing immigration laws are bogus. Millions and Millions? We only let in 1 million per year TOTAL (most of them are Asian and Indian). We already give "special rights" to the wealthy, educated immigrants. I would favor closing borders, opening immigration, and stop having a government program for every sob story and lazy person.

I love how you act like you're the perfect American when you're an ungrateful elitist that doesn't want to share the blessings you're damn lucky to have.

Do you realize that our Declaration of Independence says that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are Unalienable Rights? Yet, you don't want impoverished Mexicans to be able to come here and work for minimum wage. Unbelievable.

If you don't want to pay for their healthcare and education, that's fine. But don't act like we had to work really hard to be born Americans. It was just blind luck on our part and we shouldn't act entitled because of it.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to the whole world you fucking physco.

No, but when they say "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," it most certainly does apply to everyone else.

And yeah, our government is broke. But if we backed off on providing every little thing to every single poor person, we could open immigration without being flooded with immigrants. It's basic logic. People will only come if there are jobs or welfare to be had. If we cut back on welfare, only people who want to work will come. If we improve our documentation, we can tax those increased incomes.

Are you really this stupid? Or are you just putting on a show?

 

[Artevelde]

I think what both Fred and I don't understand is this:

When someone targets Americans, like the underwear bomber for example, they are labeled terrorists. When America attacks, its 'liberating'. America blew the crap out of two countries for no reason at all. If Iraq had attacked America, they'd be labeled terrorists, so why does America get away with what other countries cannot?

Just seems like a double standard, no offense.

This is really stupid. First of all there is a difference between terrorist attacks and the use of legitimate military force by a sovereign country against another country (or ahainst terrorists, for that matter). If you can't grasp that difference I can only conclude ypu despise international law and civilization in general.

As for the US attacking countries "without reason": Afghanistan provided the base for horrendous terrorist attacks against the US. Virtually the whole world acknowledged that the US was right in invading Afghanistan and had very good cause to. As for Iraq, it was in breach of its cease-fire obligations and the resumption of hostilities in 2003 was thus fully justified. Would you have preferred endlessly bombing Iraq (like during the 90's)?

 

[Noomi]

This is really stupid. First of all there is a difference between terrorist attacks and the use of legitimate military force by a sovereign country against another country (or ahainst terrorists, for that matter). If you can't grasp that difference I can only conclude ypu despise international law and civilization in general.

As for the US attacking countries "without reason": Afghanistan provided the base for horrendous terrorist attacks against the US. Virtually the whole world acknowledged that the US was right in invading Afghanistan and had very good cause to. As for Iraq, it was in breach of its cease-fire obligations and the resumption of hostilities in 2003 was thus fully justified. Would you have preferred endlessly bombing Iraq (like during the 90's)?

As far as I know, there was no threat to the US from Iraq, and thus no reason to invade.