DGalgin

I think you are both missing the ball here. The United States entered Iraq with the information that there were weapons of mass destruction; this has said to be false. Although there is no proof of weapons of mass destruction, there is a precedent and an implication that they were there. When the US Marines and Army, captured different Iraqi military posts, many times they found gas masks and MOPP gear ([Mission Oriented Protective Posture] is a military term used to describe protective gear, to be used in a toxic environment, i.e., during a chemical, biological, or nuclear strike. Gear much like what the soldiers, both American and British wore when entering into Iraq. There would be no need for defending soldiers to carry this unless their government meaning Saddam was going to slime the liberating armies. The clearest precedent for the use of chemical weapons came from their prior use, Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikritieh, more popularly known as Chemical Ali, used mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX against Kurdish targets, in his own country. With the precedent of the use of weapons of mass destruction and the prevention of allowing UN Inspectors to do thier job, brought on UN Resolution 1441, allowing and putting UN Inspectors back into Iraq after they had been expelled. There was much debate over the use of military force to uphold Resolution 1441, any while many countries were against the invasion of Iraq still many were for it. United States - The US felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of resolution 1441, then military action would be the result. United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the US plan to invade Iraq. The British Prime Minister Tony Blair, publicly and vigorously supported US policy on Iraq.Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval. Now there were many who were adamant against war in Iraq, including France and Germany, and Mexico, which flipped its opinion right as the war started even though Resolution 1441 and Resolution 678 did allow the use of military action if Iraq didn?t meet the standards set by the UN Resolutions. The nature of the attack and the thoughts behind it are the reason that the US went into Iraq. France did not have two of its largest building in Paris flown into by Islamic extremists, nor did Germany and Mexico. The US suffered the attack and had 2998 of its citizens killed. The reaction was the war in Afghanistan, which can easily be seen as a legitimate attack directly at terrorism, while Iraq doesn?t fall into this category, the war was warranted by the action of Saddam Hussein and by the Resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. Victory in Iraq is not making everyone happy with the US and pledging their support, victory is handing over a country that can be run by the democratic elected government and defended by the soldiers of the Iraq army. The easiest way to tell where the tied is going is to look at the death toll. The troop surge while unpopular to many worked. Deaths of US service men are down, the lowest since that start of the war. This is because more and more patrols are lead by the Iraqi Military, not US soldiers. Slowly, but in a positive direction the Iraqi government and its people will be able to take control and lead their country into prosperity. The hatred of this war is not unlike Vietnam or even World War Two, at the start of Vietnam many supported the actions that the US took in protecting the freedoms of South Vietnam, the same as in Korea, the difference is as wars continue, and lasts longer, public opinion typically shifts away from supporting the action. The same is true during WWII; before the final planned attack and finish of the Pacific Theatre the public at home in the US was calling to have its boys back. This same dilemma faces the US service men today, they can?t be blamed. Soldiers don?t make the policy, they just enforce it. When a US soldier goes to war it is because the government sends him there not because they want to go there. If you don?t like the war fine, you have the right to that opinion, same as the people of Iraq now are allowed opinions, but don?t blame the soldiers. Respect them for they do a job you wouldn?t and a job that is important even in a war you may not support. It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest. It is the soldier who serves beneath the flag, who salutes the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag.

I am glad that you see things my way. It is an atrocity that the fact that we have illegal immigrants trying to come here has such a great effect on those who are coming within our legal system. I don't think that our politicians realize the severity of the issue. While they sit in Washinton arguing over amnisty or not, more and more illegal immigrants cross the border and come into the united states. Before adressing the amnisty issue the borders need to be secure so that we will not have more terrorist attacks and that we can adress those who are here without having to worry about those who are still coming. This will prevent us from having to adress the problems again in the future.

The United States should put a large effort into securing our border with Mexico and preventing the crossing of the border by illegal immigrants and the problems that come with them. An average day along the border between the US and Mexico starts early in the mourning for both the sides of the border. The US Border Patrol Agents rise early and head to their posts, ready for another hot day out in the sun. When a call comes in saying that there is an illegal immigrant that has become stranded and disoriented out in the desert and that they need medical assistance, and when the Border Patrol Agent gets there he recognizes the guy as someone he sent back the day before. I would like to discuss the increase in illegal crossing of our borders and how illegal immigration hurts not only those along the border but also all those who live in the United States legally. It is important to know all the facts and also what action can be taken against the illegal border crossings. What are some of the facts about illegal immigration especially border crossings. A. Many immigrants are repeat offenders and an increasing problem 1. 53 % of the border crossers that are caught try again within days 2. One alien said it was his 17th time being sent back 3. 1980 9,000 illegals in prison, 2003 267,000 illegals in prison 4. As long as the 2003 number didnt go up; though it did it costs us $6.7 billion a year for those in prison B. Under staffed and under funded border patrols 1. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency works at 50% optimal staffing 2. To wall of all 1,951 miles would cost about $5.3 billion to build 3. To staff the wall with two agents per mile would cost $750,000 per agent or $1.3 billion a year 4. Wall upkeep would be $500,000 a mile or $976 million a year 5. A total annual cost of $2.3 billion 6. Not all would need fencing, only 850 miles, with a $1 billion per year price tag 7. The incarceration costs more a year then it would to build and maintain the wall to stop the movement C. Cost of the illegal immigrants is very high 1. Crimes committed by these illegal aliens cost us annually as much as $150 billion 2. Accidents caused by illegal aliens cost us $11.5 billion a year 3. The education cost for the illegal aliens children is $34.5 billion a year 4. These costs all together are $196 billion a year, or $193.7 billion more that what it is to maintain the full wall along the border D. Crime rates are higher with illegal immigrants then with citizens 1. 704,709 crimes were committed by illegals last year The United States should take a hard stand on the border by building the double wall system along the entire border, legislation, and employing two or more agents per mile of border. A. Legislation 1. Making a national ID system that requires proof of citizenship, used for all non cash purchases and deposits 2. Enforce strict penalties on those here and working to act as a deterrent 3. Government assistance should only be allowed to those with proper ID 4. School closed to those without proof of citizenship (kid to parent) 5. English as national language to be full citizen (Undocumented and tourism) 6. National ID to vote, early vote done at station. No mail ins. 7. No English, no driving law 8. Reword the 14th amendment to not allow anchor children or illegal aliens children are citizens 9. No free healthcare to non citizens B. The Wall 1. Cheaper to build the wall then to keep illegals in country 2. Proven that solid fences are gone around, no way around no coming C. Border Agents 1. Train them as military units 2. 2 or more per mile. 3. Allow them to shoot to kill at checkpoints when large groups of immigrants come through How will this help the problem? A. Employ more Americans 1. It will take a doubling of the Border Patrol to guard border 2. Many needed to build and maintain the wall B. Make some volunteer to go home 1. If their family cant come they will go back 2. Lose benefits of being here wont want to be here C. Safer society How much longer will we allow our southern border to be invaded? How can we live and sleep at peace knowing that we dont know who or what is coming across our border while we go about our lives? With the wall and the agents this would not be a problem and we could focus on other things. In summary, not having a secure border with Mexico is a determent to our safety and it is costing us billions of dollars a year. These problems and costs will only increase if the border is not closed to those coming here illegally. Because of these issues the US government should make federal legislation to help law enforcement and the Border Patrol keep us safe by securing the border. By working together, the government and the people we can solve this problem. Call or write to you senators and congressmen and ask them to take a stand on illegal immigration and border control, also if you have time or the ability to go down and volunteer your time as a border patroller with volunteer groups. It is time to get off our buts and do something. Through commitment we can ensure the safety of ourselves and our children and leave them with one less problem to deal with. Sources http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ created by PF Wagner

I would like to know why we have to blame the Republican Party for not having caught him when your wonderful adulteress President Bill Clinton had a chance to destroy a vehicle he was traveling in, in Afghanistan while he was president. Even worse he had more then one chance to take out Osama Bin Laden. I place allot of blame on President Clinton for not killing Bin Laden and dealing or preventing 9/11. It is not President Bush's fault for taking out Bin Laden, the chance to do that was back during the Clinton Administration. I blame the Democratic Party for not having the balls to take out Bin Laden.