Posted 1 week ago on July 15, 2014, 3:18 p.m. EST by ButtonHGwinnett
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
To err is human. To really mess things up it takes a -----. Is Mexico our friend or foe? Where else could thousands of children enter a country illegally, walk across the entire country, and illegally enter a third country? What are the billions of US Foreign Aid dollars given to Latin American countries paying for?
Central American Refugees
The deteriorating situation in Mosul and other areas of northern Iraq has forced half a million people from their homes in recent days, adding to a record number of refugees whose lives were uprooted by violence over the past year.
The U.N. refugee agency said on Friday that more than 51 million people were forcibly displaced in 2013, the largest number since the end of World War II. Half of the refugees were children.
The Worst Refugee Crisis Since WWII
Coahuila de Zaragoza, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, and Sonora are the Mexican states that border the United States across from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona. Should the United States coordinate friendly exercises with the Mexican government to deport the immigrants from Mexico? The logistic and material requirements to contain this invasion is beyond civilian solutions.
A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that attack materializes. It is a war which preemptively 'breaks the peace'. The term: 'preemptive war' is sometimes confused with the term: 'preventive war'. The difference is that a preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of an enemy, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned, while a preemptive war is launched in anticipation of immediate enemy aggression. Most contemporary scholarship equates preventive war with aggression, and therefore argues that it is illegitimate. The waging of a preemptive war has less stigma attached than does the waging of a preventive war. The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter (see 'Legality' below), unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. (Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the UN.)
Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law"), and prohibits all UN members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". But in the modern framework of the UN Charter, it is the phrase "armed attack occurs" in Article 51 that draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force. From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter. In order to be justified as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to (merely) perceived. The second condition is that the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is threatened. When it comes to a situation where an armed attack is considered as a self-defense, it usually narrows realistic options for avoidance by nonviolent means such as negotiation, retreat, or calling upon higher authorities (such as the police or the UN).
Endless waves of illegal immigrants