ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: More US troops killed amid growing controversy over Saddam's weapons

  1. #1
    Guest
    BAGHDAD (AFP) - Three more US soldiers were reported killed in separate attacks in Iraq, amid growing controversy in the United States and Britain over the reasons for waging war against Saddam Hussein. One attack targeted a US convoy in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit north of Baghdad at around 10:30 pm (18:30 GMT) Wednesday, killing one soldier and wounding another, Specialist Nicci Trent said, without providing further details. In Mahmudiyah, south of the capital, two soldiers were killed when they were ambushed with small arms fire at around 6:30 pm (14:30 GMT) on Wednesday, Sergeant Patrick Compton said. He did not elaborate. The deaths brought the toll from attacks on US troops to 32 since May 1, when the United States declared major combat operations over, and highlighted the human as well as the financial cost of the occupation.

    US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators Wednesday that Iraqi operations were costing the United States 3.9 billion dollars per month, and said Washington wanted to draw in other nations to help police and rebuild the country. Washington and London meanwhile appeared to backtrack on their main reason for waging war against Saddam Hussein's regime, the existence and imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, while still insisting that they were right to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States "did not act in Iraq because we have discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," he said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on September 11," he said, referring to the 2001 terror attacks in the United States that killed some 3,000 people.

    "That experience changed our appreciation of (the) vulnerability the US faces from terrorist states and terrorist networks armed with powerful weapons," he added. The statement seemed to conflict with those made before the war by officials from President George W. Bush's administration, that military force was needed against Saddam's regime because Iraq's weapons of massive destruction threatened the security of the United States and its allies. In London the BBC quoted unnamed senior British government officials as saying they no longer believe that such weapons will be uncovered in Iraq. "Senior government sources are telling me that they no longer believe that physical weapons of mass destruction are actually going to be found in Iraq," said the BBC's Andrew Marr.

    "They don't think that there were no weapons programmes. They believe that interviews with Iraqi scientists, perhaps documentation will be uncovered which will reveal the extent of programmes that were there in the past," Marr said. "But when it comes to physical evidence I have to say that the belief that that will be found and can be paraded in front of the cameras seems to be trickling into the sand," Marr said. Downing Street said that Prime Minister Tony Blair was standing by his comments to MPs at a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he is convinced that evidence of Iraq's weapons programmes will be found.


    Commentators said that here again Blair seemed to be changing his tack, talking about evidence of weapons programmes rather than weapons themselves.


    "One theory is that Saddam Hussein did have it, but dismantled his weapons of mass destruction before the war started, perhaps because he had made promises to countries like France and Russia and he hoped that those countries would help him," Marr said.


    Interactive:
    Downtown Baghdad




    "The people I am talking to were not cynics, they are not people who made the evidence up or who believed it wasn't there in first place, they are genuinely bemused," he said.

    The latest twist follows an admission by the White House that claims by Bush that Iraq had tried to obtain nuclear materials from the African state of Niger were based on false intelligence.

    Bush deflected a question on whether he regretted highlighting the allegation in his State of the Union address in January.

    "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace and there is no doubt in my mind the United States along with our allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," he said in Pretoria.

    But the opposition Democrat leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, again said the issue underscores the need for a full congressional investigation on US intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

    In London, Britain stuck fast by the same claim, made in a dossier published by the government in September.

    "I don't accept in any shape or form that the information in that briefing was wrong," Blair told the House of Commons.

    "We had included the material in our dossier on the basis of our knowledge, which was different," a government spokesman added.

    Rumsfeld also said that postwar reconstruction needed the contribution of a broad array of nations.

    "We've got 19 countries on the ground, we've got commitment from another 19 ... Italy and Spain have both made commitments," he said, adding that he expected additional deployments of foreign troops from September.

    "Our goal is to get a large number of international forces from a lot of countries," he said, including France and Germany, which both opposed the war.

    But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in an interview published Thursday that Paris will only join a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq if it is under a UN mandate.

  2. #2
    Guest
    BAGHDAD (AFP) - Three more US soldiers were reported killed in separate attacks in Iraq, amid growing controversy in the United States and Britain over the reasons for waging war against Saddam Hussein. One attack targeted a US convoy in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit north of Baghdad at around 10:30 pm (18:30 GMT) Wednesday, killing one soldier and wounding another, Specialist Nicci Trent said, without providing further details. In Mahmudiyah, south of the capital, two soldiers were killed when they were ambushed with small arms fire at around 6:30 pm (14:30 GMT) on Wednesday, Sergeant Patrick Compton said. He did not elaborate. The deaths brought the toll from attacks on US troops to 32 since May 1, when the United States declared major combat operations over, and highlighted the human as well as the financial cost of the occupation.

    US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators Wednesday that Iraqi operations were costing the United States 3.9 billion dollars per month, and said Washington wanted to draw in other nations to help police and rebuild the country. Washington and London meanwhile appeared to backtrack on their main reason for waging war against Saddam Hussein's regime, the existence and imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, while still insisting that they were right to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States "did not act in Iraq because we have discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," he said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on September 11," he said, referring to the 2001 terror attacks in the United States that killed some 3,000 people.

    "That experience changed our appreciation of (the) vulnerability the US faces from terrorist states and terrorist networks armed with powerful weapons," he added. The statement seemed to conflict with those made before the war by officials from President George W. Bush's administration, that military force was needed against Saddam's regime because Iraq's weapons of massive destruction threatened the security of the United States and its allies. In London the BBC quoted unnamed senior British government officials as saying they no longer believe that such weapons will be uncovered in Iraq. "Senior government sources are telling me that they no longer believe that physical weapons of mass destruction are actually going to be found in Iraq," said the BBC's Andrew Marr.

    "They don't think that there were no weapons programmes. They believe that interviews with Iraqi scientists, perhaps documentation will be uncovered which will reveal the extent of programmes that were there in the past," Marr said. "But when it comes to physical evidence I have to say that the belief that that will be found and can be paraded in front of the cameras seems to be trickling into the sand," Marr said. Downing Street said that Prime Minister Tony Blair was standing by his comments to MPs at a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he is convinced that evidence of Iraq's weapons programmes will be found.


    Commentators said that here again Blair seemed to be changing his tack, talking about evidence of weapons programmes rather than weapons themselves.


    "One theory is that Saddam Hussein did have it, but dismantled his weapons of mass destruction before the war started, perhaps because he had made promises to countries like France and Russia and he hoped that those countries would help him," Marr said.


    Interactive:
    Downtown Baghdad




    "The people I am talking to were not cynics, they are not people who made the evidence up or who believed it wasn't there in first place, they are genuinely bemused," he said.

    The latest twist follows an admission by the White House that claims by Bush that Iraq had tried to obtain nuclear materials from the African state of Niger were based on false intelligence.

    Bush deflected a question on whether he regretted highlighting the allegation in his State of the Union address in January.

    "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace and there is no doubt in my mind the United States along with our allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," he said in Pretoria.

    But the opposition Democrat leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, again said the issue underscores the need for a full congressional investigation on US intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

    In London, Britain stuck fast by the same claim, made in a dossier published by the government in September.

    "I don't accept in any shape or form that the information in that briefing was wrong," Blair told the House of Commons.

    "We had included the material in our dossier on the basis of our knowledge, which was different," a government spokesman added.

    Rumsfeld also said that postwar reconstruction needed the contribution of a broad array of nations.

    "We've got 19 countries on the ground, we've got commitment from another 19 ... Italy and Spain have both made commitments," he said, adding that he expected additional deployments of foreign troops from September.

    "Our goal is to get a large number of international forces from a lot of countries," he said, including France and Germany, which both opposed the war.

    But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in an interview published Thursday that Paris will only join a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq if it is under a UN mandate.

  3. #3
    Guest
    WASHINGTON - As President Bush (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended their invasion of Iraq, a group of arms control experts accused the administration of misrepresenting intelligence information to justify the war. When the war began in March, Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to its neighbors, a former senior State Department intelligence official said Wednesday. Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a "faith-based" policy on Iraq and took the approach that "we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers."

    Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information. "There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made." In Washington, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration decided to use military force in Iraq because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

    "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11." Under questioning from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Rumsfeld said he did not know how much the administration would propose to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the new budget year that begins Oct. 1. He said under the $62.4 billion midyear spending bill, the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion a month on Iraq from January through September this year. An average of $700 million a month is being spent in Afghanistan.

    Thielmann said the administration had distorted intelligence to fit its policy purposes. He said Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program and that while CIA Director George Tenet told Congress Iraq had Scud missiles, the intelligence finding actually was that the missiles could not be accounted for. The Pentagon, meanwhile, said 1,044 American servicemen and women have been wounded in action or injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Of that total, 382 have been wounded or injured since Bush declared major combat over on May 1, according to the Pentagon's figures. Of the 212 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, 74 died after May 1. The Army's 3rd Infantry Division is beginning a phased pullout of its 16,000 troops, with the entire unit expected back in the United States by September, Rumsfeld told the committee. The division, which played a central role in capturing Baghdad in April, is based at Fort Stewart, Ga.

    In the immediate aftermath of the toppling of Saddam's government in April, it was expected that the 3rd Infantry Division would go home by June. But the soldiers were kept longer because of a surge of anti-U.S. violence in Baghdad and elsewhere in central Iraq. Rumsfeld said there are now 148,000 American troops in Iraq. He did not say whether the 3rd Infantry Division would be replaced by another U.S. unit, although he said he expects thousands of international soldiers to begin operating in the country by late summer or early fall. Democrats pressed Rumsfeld about whether the administration specifically requested forces from NATO. Rumsfeld said his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, made a formal request for postwar assistance in December


    "None since the war?" asked Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat. "I have no idea," Rumsfeld said, offering to find out. At the Arms Control Association session Wednesday, Gregory V. Treverton, a senior analyst at Rand, a government-financed research group, challenged what he said was the administration's persistent description of intelligence as evidence when it often is a qualified judgment. But the administration extracted from the data the "best ***per stickers" it could fashion, said the former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council. Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, credited U.N. inspectors with doing a good job of finding weapons in Iraq and having them dismantled. But he said the administration in its statements made the inspectors "look like fools" and went far beyond U.S. intelligence findings on Iraq.

  4. #4
    Guest
    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States. He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I think we have definitely solved this question," Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.

    The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed. In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said. The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium's agreements with NATO allies and other European Union members. The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington would be reluctant to send U.S. officials to Brussels for meetings at NATO headquarters and that it was opposed to any further spending on a new alliance headquarters. Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who angered Washington with his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, was also caught by the law as he was accused by an opposition party of illegally authorizing arms shipments to strife-torn Nepal. Michel, who has stayed in the new government, denied that it was U.S. pressure which had provoked the government's move. "This was abused by some people who wanted to damage other people, leaders and partners. Those who forced us to change the law are those who abused the law," he told VRT television.

    Belgium had already taken steps to soften the law, such as allowing cases be forwarded to a defendant's country if the country was democratic and could handle the suit properly. Such was the fate of the cases launched against Bush and Blair over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had said it was better if such suits never came up in the first place. The case against Sharon, filed by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militias, was suspended as the court decided he had immunity as a leader who was still in office. Verhofstadt's move is aimed at definitively narrowing the scope for war crimes cases with its strict rules on the need for a Belgian or someone resident in the country to file a case. He mentioned three suits that would proceed, all involving Belgians. These were in Guatemala, Chad and Rwanda. It was Belgium's prosecution of two Rwandan nuns on genocide charges in 2001 as the first application of the law which prompted a flood of other suits

  5. #5
    Guest
    It's a **** good thing that pansy asses like yourselves weren't alive during WWII. If one or two deaths were a big deal back then, you'd all be in concentration camps, speaking German.

    I could imagine Dwight Eisenhower and Patton and the likes crying like the liberal scumbags of today, "Ohhhh, it's so terrible, we lost ONE more soldier today." Reality check: We are at WAR! People DIE in WAR! There have been a total of just over 200 U.S. soldier die since the beginning of this thing. That's 4 months worth of fighting. It wasn't uncommon for THOUSANDS to die in one day during WWII.

    Maybe you support Saddam slaughtering his own people. Oh, that's right, you ALREADY have YOUR freedom, right? Why should others be given that opportunity? Get a life!

  6. #6
    Guest
    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States. He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I think we have definitely solved this question," Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.

    The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed. In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said. The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium's agreements with NATO allies and other European Union members. The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington would be reluctant to send U.S. officials to Brussels for meetings at NATO headquarters and that it was opposed to any further spending on a new alliance headquarters. Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who angered Washington with his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, was also caught by the law as he was accused by an opposition party of illegally authorizing arms shipments to strife-torn Nepal. Michel, who has stayed in the new government, denied that it was U.S. pressure which had provoked the government's move. "This was abused by some people who wanted to damage other people, leaders and partners. Those who forced us to change the law are those who abused the law," he told VRT television.

    Belgium had already taken steps to soften the law, such as allowing cases be forwarded to a defendant's country if the country was democratic and could handle the suit properly. Such was the fate of the cases launched against Bush and Blair over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had said it was better if such suits never came up in the first place. The case against Sharon, filed by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militias, was suspended as the court decided he had immunity as a leader who was still in office. Verhofstadt's move is aimed at definitively narrowing the scope for war crimes cases with its strict rules on the need for a Belgian or someone resident in the country to file a case. He mentioned three suits that would proceed, all involving Belgians. These were in Guatemala, Chad and Rwanda. It was Belgium's prosecution of two Rwandan nuns on genocide charges in 2001 as the first application of the law which prompted a flood of other suits

  7. #7
    Guest
    It's a god **** good thing that pansy asses like yourselves weren't alive during WWII. If one or two deaths were a big deal back then, you'd all be in concentration camps, speaking German.

    I could imagine Dwight Eisenhower and Patton and the likes crying like the liberal scumbags of today, "Ohhhh, it's so terrible, we lost ONE more soldier today." Reality check: We are at WAR! People DIE in WAR! There have been a total of just over 200 U.S. soldier die since the beginning of this thing. That's 4 months worth of fighting. It wasn't uncommon for THOUSANDS to die in one day during WWII.

    Maybe you support Saddam slaughtering his own people. Oh, that's right, you ALREADY have YOUR freedom, right? Why should others be given that opportunity? Get a life!

  8. #8
    Guest
    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States. He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I think we have definitely solved this question," Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.

    The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed. In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said. The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium's agreements with NATO allies and other European Union members. The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington would be reluctant to send U.S. officials to Brussels for meetings at NATO headquarters and that it was opposed to any further spending on a new alliance headquarters. Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who angered Washington with his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, was also caught by the law as he was accused by an opposition party of illegally authorizing arms shipments to strife-torn Nepal. Michel, who has stayed in the new government, denied that it was U.S. pressure which had provoked the government's move. "This was abused by some people who wanted to damage other people, leaders and partners. Those who forced us to change the law are those who abused the law," he told VRT television.

    Belgium had already taken steps to soften the law, such as allowing cases be forwarded to a defendant's country if the country was democratic and could handle the suit properly. Such was the fate of the cases launched against Bush and Blair over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had said it was better if such suits never came up in the first place. The case against Sharon, filed by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militias, was suspended as the court decided he had immunity as a leader who was still in office. Verhofstadt's move is aimed at definitively narrowing the scope for war crimes cases with its strict rules on the need for a Belgian or someone resident in the country to file a case. He mentioned three suits that would proceed, all involving Belgians. These were in Guatemala, Chad and Rwanda. It was Belgium's prosecution of two Rwandan nuns on genocide charges in 2001 as the first application of the law which prompted a flood of other suits

  9. #9
    Guest
    It's a god **** good thing that pansy asses like yourselves weren't alive during WWII. If one or two deaths were a big deal back then, you'd all be in concentration camps, speaking German.

    I could imagine Dwight Eisenhower and Patton and the likes crying like the liberal scumbags of today, "Ohhhh, it's so terrible, we lost ONE more soldier today." Reality check: We are at WAR! People DIE in WAR! There have been a total of just over 200 U.S. soldier die since the beginning of this thing. That's 4 months worth of fighting. It wasn't uncommon for THOUSANDS to die in one day during WWII.

    Maybe you support Saddam slaughtering his own people. Oh, that's right, you ALREADY have YOUR freedom, right? Why should others be given that opportunity? Get a life!

  10. #10
    Guest
    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States. He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I think we have definitely solved this question," Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.

    The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed. In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said. The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium's agreements with NATO allies and other European Union members. The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington would be reluctant to send U.S. officials to Brussels for meetings at NATO headquarters and that it was opposed to any further spending on a new alliance headquarters. Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who angered Washington with his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, was also caught by the law as he was accused by an opposition party of illegally authorizing arms shipments to strife-torn Nepal. Michel, who has stayed in the new government, denied that it was U.S. pressure which had provoked the government's move. "This was abused by some people who wanted to damage other people, leaders and partners. Those who forced us to change the law are those who abused the law," he told VRT television.

    Belgium had already taken steps to soften the law, such as allowing cases be forwarded to a defendant's country if the country was democratic and could handle the suit properly. Such was the fate of the cases launched against Bush and Blair over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had said it was better if such suits never came up in the first place. The case against Sharon, filed by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militias, was suspended as the court decided he had immunity as a leader who was still in office. Verhofstadt's move is aimed at definitively narrowing the scope for war crimes cases with its strict rules on the need for a Belgian or someone resident in the country to file a case. He mentioned three suits that would proceed, all involving Belgians. These were in Guatemala, Chad and Rwanda. It was Belgium's prosecution of two Rwandan nuns on genocide charges in 2001 as the first application of the law which prompted a flood of other suits

Similar Threads

  1. Immigrant Community Not Only Growing in Size but Also in Power
    By HS News in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-19-2010, 12:26 PM
  2. U.S. fast tracks immigrant troops' citizenship
    By E. in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-07-2004, 04:50 PM
  3. Bush found the weapons
    By Itduzz in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-06-2004, 06:39 PM
  4. US troops at Abu Gharib
    By Itduzz in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 11:27 AM
  5. Weapons misdemeanor and naturalization
    By anonymous in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-15-2003, 12:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: