Let's say I break into your house

I'm prepared to call both of those wars. However, they are wars in and of themselves, not "battles" in the "War on Terror." The war on terror is pretend. Has anyone ever asked themselves why 9/11 was immediately thought of as an act of war? There's really no plausible reason it should have been. It was civilians committing a crime. A horribly heinous crime, to be sure, but a crime at that. There was no reason that the military and the CIA have to be involved in chasing these people down. It is a police matter.

And yes, I view both of those wars as illegal.

And as I see the facts......
Osama bin laden had in fact been recognized as a military leader by the United States of America, back when he was doing our bidding fighting the USSR, and Osama bin laden decleared war on the United States of America back in 1996.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

The de facto government of Afghanistan offered Osama bin laden safe haven after his Military Forces attacked the United States of America, albeit using Civilian Aircraft, owing to the fact that the Military Forces of Osama bin laden did not include an Air Force.
Then, after repeated attempts to have Osama bin laden turned over to the United States of America, the de facto government of Afghanistan did in fact ally themselves to Osama bin laden.

As for Iraq, well the United States Congress has the power to authorize any Military action, against any Nation on Earth, at any time the United States Congress deems the interests of the United States of America are threated in any way.

But seeing how you feel so strongly about the issue, you can sue the United States Government, if you choose, and have your voice heard in a Court of Law. I'm sure there is a Federal Court House not more than a days ride away from where you live, as they are all over the place, and there are many Lawyers listed in the Yellow Pages.... good luck.
 
I appreciate the offer, but I left the United States five years ago. But still, that was very civil. Keep up the good work.

I was just going by your Profile.

Perhaps we will get you back soon, you did register for the Draft correct?
 
Gentlemen, please try to keep it civil and stay on-topic from now on!

Thanks.
 
Indeed Luis, sometimes in life the answer is just that simple, as long as you leave the politicians out of it and leave it to patriots and men of character following the guide of virtue ethics.
 
So I would be correct in saying that you guys would support machine gun emplacements on the US-Mexican border, with orders to shoot anything that moves?
 
So I would be correct in saying that you guys would support machine gun emplacements on the US-Mexican border, with orders to shoot anything that moves?

Don't be stupid ILG. Not "anything", you are not allowed to shoot animals without the appropriate license.

Criminals (persons breaking the law) who don't stop when called up on, Well... I guess that they're fair game the same as any other criminal.
 
So I would be correct in saying that you guys would support machine gun emplacements on the US-Mexican border, with orders to shoot anything that moves?

Well, I'm all for putting up a high fence at the Border, coming in 100 yards, putting up another fence, and putting a 100 yard deep Minefield in between... with appropriate Warning Signs and such.

Minefield.jpg


Legal Crossing Points would be used, or there would be many who die in the Minefield, and as a bonus the Mexican Government would not be able to say the USA is putting Troops on the Border.
 
Not too many shades of grey with you, huh? Just black and white?

I don't know if I'm reading you correctly, but the way you come across to me is that you seem to think your nations security is some kind of weird joke and the laws applying to it are merely put in place to be a nuisance to those wanting to enter.

Not being a citizen of your country I do not know all of the laws pertaining to this. But I understand that there are adequate means for persons to enter your country legally. (I have on numerous occasions).

As I see it, if anyone should take it upon themselves to try and bypass (break) these laws they are to be considered as criminals. Which in itself is a good reason to preclude them from entering.
 
And who pays for this? .... The US taxpayer, and why should they?

If these people are caught they should be sent back as soon as possible. The only thing wrong with this is that it provides no deterrent, and often they will be back in a matter of days. If this is going to be the case, an understanding must be worked out with the government of the country from whence they came, to pick up the tab for all of this. Then they might start doing something about the problem.

Sorry Major, we were on the same frequency there.
 
Back
Top