If you fell for WMD, you are also terrified of MS-13!

volsrocks said:
WRONG

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, bypassing inspection and entering the US without being inspected can lead to deportation without due process. Individuals who enter without inspection are considered inadmissible and can face deportation proceedings and other penalties. Some cases may even be subject to expedited removal, where individuals can be quickly deported without a court case.



Thats the rule of law!!!!!
Click to expand...
Take a Constitutional Law Class.
 
Jarod said:
I am standing up for the Constitution. The very ideals of America that make us so great everyone wants to come here.

The ideals of Jefferson and Madison.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, so you are a Madisonian now when it comes to the Constitution?

You never answered my question regarding you not wanting gang members immigrating to this country. Why don't you want them here? Could we assume you are afraid of them?

If a group of MS-13 gang members moved next door to your daughter would you be worried for her safety? Or would you encourage her to take them a housewarming present?
 
Jarod said:
If you were so afraid of WMD you agreed to send over 7000 American hero’s to die in Iraq, you are also likely so afraid of MS-13 eating your dogs you agree to violate the Constitution and support a Felon to be president.
Click to expand...
MS 13 and their associated gangs, the Surenos, Sur 13, and 18th Street, are real and they are vicious. As for Iraq and WMD's I didn't really care one way or the other. Iraq and Hussein didn't have nukes so whatever they did have, like chemical munitions, were not really WMD's and just bullshit alternatives to conventional munitions. That was most recently proved by Saddam using them in the Iran-Iraq war.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
MS 13 and their associated gangs, the Surenos, Sur 13, and 18th Street, are real and they are vicious. As for Iraq and WMD's I didn't really care one way or the other. Iraq and Hussein didn't have nukes so whatever they did have, like chemical munitions, were not really WMD's and just bullshit alternatives to conventional munitions. That was most recently proved by Saddam using them in the Iran-Iraq war.
Click to expand...
I do not believe you, you were afraid of Iraq and wanted us to "fight them there instead of here."
 
T. A. Gardner said:
As for Iraq and WMD's I didn't really care one way or the other. Iraq and Hussein didn't have nukes so whatever they did have, like chemical munitions, were not really WMD's and just bullshit alternatives to conventional munitions. That was most recently proved by Saddam using them in the Iran-Iraq war.
Click to expand...
I don't have the slightest doubt that in early 2003 you were a cheerleader :cheer: for invading Iraq.

Nobody was just "neutral" about it.
 
Cypress said:
I don't have the slightest doubt that in early 2003 you were a cheerleader :cheer: for invading Iraq.

Nobody was just "neutral" about it.
Click to expand...
I was. My reasoning was different. I saw it like this:

Saddam Hussen was a major funder and supporter of terrorism worldwide, particularly Islamic-based terrorism. There is plenty of solid proof of that.

Saddam Hussen was harboring known and wanted terrorists within Iraq. Again, 100% accurate and factual.

Saddam Hussen had terrorist training camps set up within Iraq to assist in exporting terrorism. Those were discovered and documented during the invasion of Iraq.

Al Queda was a terrorist organization based on Islam, at least in good part, and needed a safe base of operation to carry out its acts. They chose the Islamic state of Afghanistan run by the Taliban for that.

After 9/11 we were going to destroy Al Queda. That meant invading Afghanistan to do so.

Al Queda would try to survive that destruction, and one means they would seek is other safe places they could continue to operate from.

Iraq was clearly one of those places. Al Queda had an open invitation to move and operate there but chose not to because they deemed Saddam's government and Saddam himself insufficiently committed to Islam religiously for their tastes.

With the US invading Afghanistan, but not Iraq, it is very likely that some of Al Queda, including possibly its leadership like Osama bin Laden, would have fled to Iraq for safety putting their religious differences aside for the moment.

This would result in the US having to invade Iraq to defeat Al Queda and we end up at the same result.

Thus, I had no qualms about us crushing Iraq and Saddam Hussen preemptively.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I was. My reasoning was different. I saw it like this:

Saddam Hussen was a major funder and supporter of terrorism worldwide, particularly Islamic-based terrorism. There is plenty of solid proof of that.

Saddam Hussen was harboring known and wanted terrorists within Iraq. Again, 100% accurate and factual.

Saddam Hussen had terrorist training camps set up within Iraq to assist in exporting terrorism. Those were discovered and documented during the invasion of Iraq.

Al Queda was a terrorist organization based on Islam, at least in good part, and needed a safe base of operation to carry out its acts. They chose the Islamic state of Afghanistan run by the Taliban for that.

After 9/11 we were going to destroy Al Queda. That meant invading Afghanistan to do so.

Al Queda would try to survive that destruction, and one means they would seek is other safe places they could continue to operate from.

Iraq was clearly one of those places. Al Queda had an open invitation to move and operate there but chose not to because they deemed Saddam's government and Saddam himself insufficiently committed to Islam religiously for their tastes.

With the US invading Afghanistan, but not Iraq, it is very likely that some of Al Queda, including possibly its leadership like Osama bin Laden, would have fled to Iraq for safety putting their religious differences aside for the moment.

This would result in the US having to invade Iraq to defeat Al Queda and we end up at the same result.

Thus, I had no qualms about us crushing Iraq and Saddam Hussen preemptively.
Click to expand...
Nobody was neutral about the Iraq war in 2003. You're lying to me that you didn't care "one way or the other."

That fact that you are genetically compelled to defend everything Republicans do, both large and small. makes it abundantly clear you were cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
 
Cypress said:
Nobody was neutral about the Iraq war in 2003. You're lying to me that you didn't care "one way or the other."

That fact that you are genetically compelled to defend everything Republicans do, both large and small. makes it abundantly clear you were cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Click to expand...
It was going to end the same way in any case. If Bush didn't invade, and we didn't get bin Laden in Afghanistan, we'd likely have had to go after him in Iraq at some point. With Saddam in power, Iraq was a much safer choice than hiding in Pakistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top