What Law, who's law did we break when we took the South West.
Well, back in the day one of our
generalisimos entered Mexican territory (technically invaded) without provocation or a declaration of war (which received very little news coverage in the US), which prompted a retaliation from the Mexican army, that's what legitimate armies do anyway, (lots of coverage by American newspapers) and hence the story was set for an armed confrontation, chearleaded along the way by American newspapers (like they do nowadays), knowing that the Mexican army would be no match for their US counterparts, effectively forcing the Mexican government into selling the territories of Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona or face an invasion of the whole legitimate state of Mexico from an illegitimate foreign army.
Now, Sadam did a very similar thing a decade or so ago, and the retaliation motives we appealed to at the time were in essence contained within the International Charters sanctioned by the UN, certainly
NOT in the US Constitution.
Now I ask of you: What is the difference between what we did in Iraq and what Mexico did to defend their territory?
I believe Europe was up to their asses in blood all over the globe. The Spainish built mexico.
I concur.
Only the Libs hide behind international law.
Wow, wow, wow, hold on now. It's not only the "libs", its 95% of the civilized world. The ones who oppose international law and the overwhelming consensus behind it throughout the world are the Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bin Laden/Ghadafi/Kim Jong/Jiang Zemin types.
The US government decides foreign policy, the military carries it out should we have to. I don't have a problem with it.
So you're basically acknowledging the fact that you are a
de-facto mercenary and not a US soldier
per se. Like I said to you before, US soldiers' primary job is to secure the integrity of our nation, ONLY attacking a foreign country when there is a clear-cut reason to do so. This is the reason international consensus was behind us in going into Afghanistan and basically told us to go fuck ourselves when Bush decided to invade Iraq. Get the point?
It was in our stategic best interest to control oil and make sure Saddam got the boot.
Whose interests are you taking about? Sure as hell not mine!
How we did it can be debated
No! WHY we did it can be debated. The "how" is now obsolete.
but I don't really care why.The Iraq war is sucking in all the nutbags and we're killing them whole sale.
No we're not, that's what's sad. It's creating nutbags by the thousands per day.
It would appear the surge is working. In any event we just can't pull out. Rightly or wrongly we caused the mess in Iraq and we have to fix it. It's naive to think the rest of the world plays by some fair system.
How is it naive? Would't it be fair to have an international body legislate and enforce international policy so that when something like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait takes place the whole world falls on top of his head?
How do you plan to "fix" Iraq? What is a "fix" for you? 1,000,000 dead Iraqui bodies? $15 a barrel? $1.50 per gallon of gasoline in the US? And by the way, the insurgency in Iraq is working, wake up. And that's the very reason there are rumours of a draft going around.
AWOL...I'm an officer and I took an oath so thats not evr going to happen. 
. I grew up with Soviet rockets ready to smoke us, same world different enemies.
If you are indeed an officer of the US army, your ONLY job is to protect our territory and US citizens, not Iraqi oil riggs, and certainly NOT the road between the green zone and Baghdad airport!
