But they entered illegally, didn't they?
They were not asked to enter, so where is the difference?

sigh....

Such hostility over imaginary lines called borders. We might be in real
trouble if we weren't the 'evolved' species.

invisible,

"But they entered illegally, didn't they?
They were not asked to enter, so where is the difference? "

Not at all.

War with Iraq was authorized by the UN on January 15, 1991. We ceased
hostilities 43 days later, under the condition that the UN inspectors
have unlimited access to Iraqi weapon sites. Saddam never allowed
unlimited access, so the hostilities could have been resumed at any
time.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized the
resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences"
for noncompliance. There were at least 10 previous resolutions with
similar wording. The UN is a paper tiger, but the US understands that
the UN is undermining it's own credibility. Standing by while millions
are slaughted in Rowanda, the UNs own abuses in the Congo, the
Oil-For-Food scandel, which has implicated government officials in
France, Great Brittain, Germany and Russia among others. The ONLY
option the US had was war. The President would probably have been
impeached if he hadn't started the war on terror. After Afganistan, the
next obvious target was Saddam. Saddam had chemical weapons and used
them to kill women and children, I have seen the pictures. Saddam had
torture and rape rooms, even without WMDs the only humane thing we could
do was remove Saddam and his sons from power. The UN has further hurt
their own credibility by watching the slaughter happening in the Sudan
and ignoring the Iraq insurgency. The UN has no moral authority and has
no right to decide when a free people protect themselves.

That's two ways that the war was authorized and both times by the UN.
That's ignoring the fact that the US Congress authorized the President
to use force if he felt it necessary...bringing us to a total of three
authorizations for one single military conflict.

ArtGurl,

"sigh....

Such hostility over imaginary lines called borders. We might be in real
trouble if we weren't the 'evolved' species."

My oldest son is half Mexican, so there is no hostility on my part.
It's very closed minded to call someone, who wants to know who is
entering their country, "hostile". Infact, that whole position is one
of feeling and not thought. Think about it for a second...Should we
allow everyone who is poor into the US, where they will be supported by
those who work? Of course, we will have to raise taxes to help feed the
masses of people. But even with raising the taxes, we still wouldn't
have the money to feed, cloth, medicate and house the worlds poor, then
we collapse as a country and everyone suffers. Wouldn't the better
solution be for the people to reform their own countries to adopt a free
market democratic society, where the people could get the jobs they
desire?

geeeeeeeeeeez rules smules~~~!!! I hate ruleeeeeeees!!!!!

hmmm I think I have that disorder........forgot the memo.....Government
is full of rules.

spider, the US still entered a land that wasn't theirs, and they didn't
get an Iraqi invitation either.
The UN authorized it, but on which grounds?
Where was the proof after entering?
There was none.
And how can the Congress authorize the President concerning a Country
that is not theirs to rule?
Leaving it to a President who was hell bent on war, and who would have
gone no matter what.

I agree Gypsy

If people were at least half as civilised as they claim to be, we
wouldn't need all these rules.
What was it Shakespear said about the lawyers?

invisible,

That's how war works...You don't get a country's permission to go to war
with them, you do it because you think it's the right thing to do. If
the world doesn't approve of your war, then they have a right to
complain, embargo, demand, cajole, or attack you.

Did anybody ask the Germans if it would be okay to attack them during
WWII?

THEY STARTED IT!!!!!

Spider - it was a general sigh of disappointment about the world...

It all makes me sad... one humanity...one planet ... there is enough
food...there are enough opportunities for all yet so many people aren't
given the chance.

We have this notion that there isn't enough for everyone so we need to
hold on to what we think is our share.

I was just imagining a different world where these invisible lines that
people die establishing and defending ceased to be important.

...just a daydream

Spider, if just everybody would sweep in front of his own door, and stop
minding other peoples doors, wars wouldn't be necessary.
And the US is in the habit to sweep everybody else's doorstep instead of
minding their own.

invisible,

"Spider, if just everybody would sweep in front of his own door, and
stop minding other peoples doors, wars wouldn't be necessary."

That's true, but it will never happen.

"And the US is in the habit to sweep everybody else's doorstep instead
of minding their own. "

The only reason that you aren't goosestepping is because the US cleaned
up Europes mess. When the mess exists, somebody has to clean it up. It
pisses the world off that the US has the testicular fortitude to man up
and do what needs to be done, but that really doesn't bother me at all.
I would rather be right and assumed wrong than be wrong and assumed
right.

Spider,

A quick review of international law.

1. Invading another country is illegal. Period.

2. The UN did not "authorize" the US to go to war.

3. If the "UN" (I assume you are referring to the Security Council) has
passed a resolution 'allowing' the US to invade Iraq, it would not have
the effect of making invasion illegal.

4. Once invaded, an occupier has to meet many international legal
requirements, spelled out under the Geneva Conventions. I don't have
time to catalog the US violations here, but if you wanted to really
study the question I can give you pointers to sources that will do so.

5. Local governments set up under the auspices of the occupying force do
not have the authority to bind the occupied country; legally they are
extensions of the occupying force. So the fact that the Iraqi "Prime
Minister" wants the US to stay does not mean that the Iraqi people do.
The former does not speak for the latter. If you wished to give legal
authority to the 'government' then you might want to look at how that
'government' was 'elected' and how it operates, and judge for yourself
how credible it is. Note also that that government has disintegrated
with the withdrawal of the largest party members.

6. To the extent that you wish to give the US-established 'government'
credence, would you then agree that the moment the "Prime Minister"
states that he wants the US to leave, that the US must leave
immediately, no questions asked? That is, that the US occupation is
wholly dependent on the 'government of Iraq'?

Oceans

If a country wishes to be the world's policeman, they must do so with
intelligence, compassion and the request of others -- or else they
simply become the world's bully.

Hitler became the world's bully. Hirohito became the world's bully.
They both thought they were serving as the world's policemen, the
'enforcers', the 'bringers of peace'. They dubbed their victims as
‘evil’. They were both raving bullies, and responsible for the
butchery of millions.

Bush is now responsible for the 'non-existence' of some 650,000 Iraqis,
as of about a year ago. The US has turned the country to rubble. Infant
mortality has shot up under US occupation. Our presence has sparked a
near-civil war. Refugees are streaming out of Iraq as we speak. US
forces have detained a vast number of Iraqis illegally, and tortured
many of them. US forces breaks into private homes in the middle of the
night and humiliates the population. And now the US is trying to
strong-arm the Iraqi 'government' into signing long-term oil contracts
favorable to US oil companies.

Bush is without a doubt the most despised man in the world.

How can you defend such a man and excuse such behavior?

The world's policeman, if such is deemed necessary, must be respected.
Being feared will only lead to the eventual demise of the bully.

Oceans

Oceans5555,

Wow, do you actually believe all that? How can you when most of that is
opposed to the facts?

"1. Invading another country is illegal. Period."

Article 39 of the UN Charter
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The Security Council decided that the proper treatment for Iraq was to
continue to make resolutions. The US decided that action was called
for. Post-invasion, it became appearant that France, Germany, Russia
and China were all involved in illegal and immoral deals with Iraq,
which prompted their no-votes. The US made the right decision and
history will show that. The President has made many mistakes, but
invading Iraq wasn't one of them. He used too few troops, but hind
sight is always 20/20.

please explain why debating if we should have went to war in Iraq is
relavent to anything. WE ARE THERE. that pretty much makes such
arguments pointless.

I started this thread about illegal imigration, how the hell did it get
hijacked to another rant on Iraq. If you want to rag on Iraq you should
be intelligent enough to start a thread about that subject. The point I
made was there are already laws on the books in the Unites States of
America that address the problem of Illegal Imigration and that if the
people charged with enforcing those laws do not, they should be removed
from office. If we would enforce the existing laws we wouldn't need
troops on the border, the job market for illgeals would dry up. I am
sick and tired of hearing about the plight of the "poor mexicans" they
are Mexico's problem not mine and I am damn tired of my tax dollars
going to support someone who committed a felony just coming into this
country. If they want to come here legally and work that is fine. So
it costs money to come here, big deal, if you can't afford it stay where
you are. You should see what it takes for an American to move to
Mexico, first off you have to have $40,000 and then there are a hell of
a bunch of restrictions that apply to you about what you can do and what
you can or cant own. Break the law by entering Mexico illegially and
get caught and see what happens ot you. They won't simply escourt you
back to the border. They will teach you a hard lesson about the civil
rights you don't have in Mexico.

yah. travel to anyother country on earth and youll find out fast that
illegal immigration simply dont happen there. all other argumenys aside,
we need to know who is entering our country and for what reason. thats
just good security. If they are comming to work, most other countries
require a work visa, which requires a background check among other
things. there are also usually quotas, so many wporkers from certain
countries, and the job has to be one that the natives either are unable
or unwilling to do. mabe we should take notes from these supposedly
backward countries.

Garden Forge -- you are quite right, re. the hijack. I think it happened
when the illegality of workers coming to the US was contrasted with the
illegality of US soldiers going to Iraq.

I'll desist, and thank you for the courteous way you pointed it out.

Oceans

in 20 years we will rule
regardless of the big wall of hate that the bushy guy from washington
wants to build.
regardless of the hatred of some of (READ VERY GOOD "SOME") those who
auto proclaim themselves Americans.
regardless of deportation and whatever dreamy solution the government
comes up.
And we will rule because if you have notice hispanic people (illegals as
you like to call us) are very fertile.
therefore, just make the math 12 million people already here now you go
figure how many children they will have in 20 years.
so you better learn to live with it.
or you know what ireland has lack of work force

Greetings