Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[Eloy]

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?

It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.

And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

So?

So, there were no terrorists who attacked the USA from any of the countries on the list but this is not so from other countries where Trump has business interests.

 

[Eloy]

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

When will you run out of lies?

When will you open your eyes?

 

[Eloy]

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

OMG - Did we honestly forget the oil for food scandal the United Nations was involved in? How about France profiting from rebuilding Iraq's military with French Marauders? Still nothing? You see, it's hard to enforce UN resolutions when you are the one on the take from a dictator [Saddam] that knows how to bride their way out. Honestly, I've lost track of how many new resolutions the UN established, because apparently it's much easier to simply write a new one than develop a backbone to actually enforce one. Also, it's hard to discredit WMDs when the UN couldn't even complete their weapons inspections in 8 years of the Clinton Administration. How hard could it possibly be that 8 years wasn't a long enough time to get their act together?

On a side note, democrat presidents are awfully good at sitting on their ass when it comes to enforcement, heck even Obama was willing to bribe a nation like Iran to free Americans. Then there's the Syrian red line "oops" he never meant to get involved in. Gotta be nice to be a nation that is taken advantage of by a weak democrat president.

Name one country that Iran has occupied in your lifetime.

Saddam, involved in UN resolutions and weapon inspectors, was a dictator for the nation of Iraq NOT Iran. Either learn your geography or get your "invading" stories straight with actual history.

I repeat, name one country that Iran has occupied or even invaded in your lifetime. Iran is no danger to the USA. The USA, however, is getting very hostile with Iran.

Iraq. You lose! Their war caused massive problems in the Persian Gulf.

Iran never invaded Iraq, even when attacked with American aid when Saddam was a friend of the USA.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.


The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

Your video is old, very old. Try to stay focused on the here and now. Making false claims based on an old video is dishonest.

The video is not old. It comes from the recent campaign by Trump to become U.S. president.

You do know the difference in a campaign speech and an Executive Order issued by the President of the United States, correct?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OMG - Did we honestly forget the oil for food scandal the United Nations was involved in? How about France profiting from rebuilding Iraq's military with French Marauders? Still nothing? You see, it's hard to enforce UN resolutions when you are the one on the take from a dictator [Saddam] that knows how to bride their way out. Honestly, I've lost track of how many new resolutions the UN established, because apparently it's much easier to simply write a new one than develop a backbone to actually enforce one. Also, it's hard to discredit WMDs when the UN couldn't even complete their weapons inspections in 8 years of the Clinton Administration. How hard could it possibly be that 8 years wasn't a long enough time to get their act together?

On a side note, democrat presidents are awfully good at sitting on their ass when it comes to enforcement, heck even Obama was willing to bribe a nation like Iran to free Americans. Then there's the Syrian red line "oops" he never meant to get involved in. Gotta be nice to be a nation that is taken advantage of by a weak democrat president.

Name one country that Iran has occupied in your lifetime.

Saddam, involved in UN resolutions and weapon inspectors, was a dictator for the nation of Iraq NOT Iran. Either learn your geography or get your "invading" stories straight with actual history.

I repeat, name one country that Iran has occupied or even invaded in your lifetime. Iran is no danger to the USA. The USA, however, is getting very hostile with Iran.

Iraq. You lose! Their war caused massive problems in the Persian Gulf.

Iran never invaded Iraq, even when attacked with American aid when Saddam was a friend of the USA.

My God, you are stupid!

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War and educate yourself!

At the end of the war, Iran took months to evacuate territory it had seized in Iraq. (BTW, that came as a result of them INVADING Iraq.)

There is ignorance and there is intentional stupidity. You are guilty of the latter.

Words have meaning. I suggest re enrolling in a school to teach you some.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

Countries cannot always pay money when it is due. If the USA considers that a good reason for allowing the Russians to invade an ally, fair enough. We now know what the Americans think is important.

How many years are they behind in their payments?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?

It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.

And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

So?

So, there were no terrorists who attacked the USA from any of the countries on the list but this is not so from other countries where Trump has business interests.

For about the 40th time in this thread, Obama's administration came up with the list!

What a simpleton!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

When will you run out of lies?

When will you open your eyes?

Why do I need to open my eyes? I lived through this time period! I served in the military during this time period. I was there. Can you say the same thing, or have you been weaned off your mother's breast milk yet?

Look up Operation Praying Mantis.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

Doesn't matter the charter for the UN allows a Nation State to wage a war for cause. For numerous reasons. The US had cause. You simply do not know what you are babbling about.

The UN Security Council did not approve the invasion of Iraq. This means the USA waged a war of aggression against Iraq which is now a failed state in civil war.

There is NO requirement for the UN to approve wars from member States. Never has been and never will be one.

 

[Eloy]

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.

Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.



As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.

Your video is old, very old. Try to stay focused on the here and now. Making false claims based on an old video is dishonest.

The video is not old. It comes from the recent campaign by Trump to become U.S. president.

You do know the difference in a campaign speech and an Executive Order issued by the President of the United States, correct?

No, I don't know the difference between Donald Trump and Donald Trump. He is creating chaos such as we have never seen in an Executive before and that includes George W Bush.

 

[Eloy]

Name one country that Iran has occupied in your lifetime.

Saddam, involved in UN resolutions and weapon inspectors, was a dictator for the nation of Iraq NOT Iran. Either learn your geography or get your "invading" stories straight with actual history.

I repeat, name one country that Iran has occupied or even invaded in your lifetime. Iran is no danger to the USA. The USA, however, is getting very hostile with Iran.

Iraq. You lose! Their war caused massive problems in the Persian Gulf.

Iran never invaded Iraq, even when attacked with American aid when Saddam was a friend of the USA.

My God, you are stupid!

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War and educate yourself!

At the end of the war, Iran took months to evacuate territory it had seized in Iraq. (BTW, that came as a result of them INVADING Iraq.)

There is ignorance and there is intentional stupidity. You are guilty of the latter.

Words have meaning. I suggest re enrolling in a school to teach you some.

No one believes that Iran invaded Iraq. For some reason they think it was the USA that caused Shock and Awe.

 

[Eloy]

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

Countries cannot always pay money when it is due. If the USA considers that a good reason for allowing the Russians to invade an ally, fair enough. We now know what the Americans think is important.

How many years are they behind in their payments?

All but four countries are behind in payments to NATO (Greece, UK, Estonia, and Poland).
Some member countries cannot afford to earmark 2% of their GDP for defense because they have pressing expenditures on caring for their aging populations. The baby boomers are entering the retirement now with insufficient young people and immigrants entering the work force. This cannot be helped overnight. European countries also have burdens on their tax revenues for medical care where everyone has coverage.

A problem is also the decision of NATO to benchmark the contributions to 2% of GDP because that figure fluctuates annually and some members who have factored for this percentage find themselves under the latest calculations for their economic performances. Some have paid the 2% previously but that contribution in real terms has since gone up. The contributions of 2% last year are under that mark this year even with no change in the actual amount paid.

Some countries may be small but strategically placed, such as Latvia and Lithuania which border Russia and these strategic locations are not factored into their contributions which undervalue their importance. Through NATO, the Americans can have strategically placed personnel and materiel right up against President Trump's friend, Vladimir Putin. These countries are a buffer against Russian aggression and benefit the USA which would have to pay a lot more if they disengage as Trump threatened and later find themselves with a bigger mess to repair in the future. The Americans currently have free bases all over Europe that money could not buy.

U.S. Naval Station in Rota, Spain

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

 

[Eloy]

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

 

[Freewill]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

 

[Redfish]

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

 

[Redfish]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

 

[Eloy]

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

The ban exempts people who have a minority religion (Christians) and implies that the majority religion (Muslims) are not exempt.