Pfft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
It's religious profiling - looks like you get fast tracked if you're a Christian.
Printable View
Pfft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
It's religious profiling - looks like you get fast tracked if you're a Christian.
Sounds like another incentive to convert, comparisons to jizya tax incoming.
It's a very vague comment and fits all nations pretty much. It's a classic example of "disguise a compliment as a flaw" that we are so fond of. Like when the teacher says "You know, your child is very bright but lazy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
This might come as a shock, but your countrymen are no more reasonably intelligent or ignorant than the rest of the world. Everybody's countrymen are usually less intelligent and more ignorant than we like to think they are.
The good president didn't ban the country from where most of 911 terrorists came.
Why, I wonder...
But yeah, Shillary was totally in the pocket of king Salman and Trump is definitely gonna drain that damn swamp.
The amount of childish rhetoric that people are ready to happily swallow because of their partisanship is incredible.
Meanwhile in St. Louis:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/10/...orth-st-louis/
The clinton foundation did in fact take 25 million from saudi arabia, trump not banning the saudis doesnt change that.
As for draining the swamp: noone can know after the first week and predictions to the contrary are made doubtful by precident, by your outright refusal you are not rising above it all, as you wish to be seen doing, but instead merely partaking in a different side's partisanship.
That's not necessarily a fact, you're using two assumptions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
1. That their website only provides correct information.
2. That the donation was 25 million, when the website lists donations between 10 and 25 million.
Of course making deals with dictators and "questionable democrats" is an old tradition of Western politicians that is hardly exclusive to Clinton, not that that makes her any better. Here are some other recent examples:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38779669
http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-tr...s-531140?rm=euQuote:
Britain has agreed a £100m defence deal to help develop fighter jets for the Turkish air force.
The announcement came as UK Prime Minister Theresa May met the Turkish president and prime minister in Ankara.
Mrs May said the defence agreement "underlines once again that Britain is a great, global, trading nation".
She said the UK would enhance trade relations with Turkey, and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country would increase trade to $20bn (£16bn).
Just business as usual I guess. :shrug:Quote:
In a telephone call that same day with Erdogan, Trump passed on compliments to the Turkish president from a senior official with his company’s business partner on the Istanbul project, whom the president-elect was reported to have called “a close friend.” The official, Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, is the son-in-law of Dogan Holding owner Aydin Dogan and was instrumental in the development of the Trump complex in Turkey. That Trump delivered messages from his business partner to Erdogan has been reported in numerous media outlets in Turkey, including some closely tied to the government, and has not been denied by Turkish officials or the Trump transition team.
The money needs to flow...
Man, you can set your watch on your hyperboles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I just gave my opinion on that guy. He hasn't shown any evolution since his first video. It's also funny that you mention tirades, since that guy specializes in the most pointless ones, and always sounds like an overgrown, angry and edgy teenager.
Can I just say lol America. What mess have you got yourselves in?
Definitely becoming "Great" again... Great Idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I like the latest photo-op where he promotes Bannon to a hugh security position. "LOOK GUYS, I'M WORKING REALLY HARD."
Perspective please.
ALL of the POTUS administrations in my lifetime have done this kind of political theatre stuff. Appointing a drug czar means we're "really" working on the drug problem. Giving a freedom award to a person of color means we no longer have any race issues. Passing a law that increases mandatory sentencing means that we are being tough on crime. Increasing the capital gains tax by 5% means we're really sticking it to the rich this time. ALL of this is SHOW and not substance -- like the hard-bodied assistant in a magic act.
The current occupant's administration is performing their little theatre moments just as have all the predecessors.
Do not let your mislike of Trump lead you to analyze his shenanigans as any more or any less superfluous and silly than those who have gone before.
You want to really evaluate him or criticize him? Look at the policy measures being taken and argue how/when/why they fall short or will have unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241
Didn't he claim during the campaign that he had a great plan already but couldn't mention it because it had to be kept secret?Quote:
In two separate measures, the president ordered:
- A ban on administration officials from ever lobbying the US on behalf of a foreign government, and a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
- A preliminary plan by the secretary of defence to defeat so-called Islamic State (IS) to be presented within 30 days
Now he tasks his secretary of defense with making a plan? What happened to his great plan that would work 100%?
You both are in the mess. One is called Trump, the other - Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What if his secretary of defense comes up with a 110% plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating.
Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for othersQuote:
Just business as usual I guess. :shrug:
The money needs to flow...
Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.Quote:
President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, not thinking ahead to the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.
"Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump joked, referring to an array of White House officials who lined up behind him as he sat at his Oval Office desk. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway. "So you have one last chance to get out."
I find your lack of faith disturbing...Quote:
I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.
Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating.
An inability to take the high road to instead follow the blind denergation of your opposition's example is nothing to take pride in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/u...ns-others.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Not so much draining the swamp, as putting a curtain around it.Quote:
But Mr. Eisen and other ethics experts noted that rules banning lobbyists from taking any job with an agency they had tried to influence in the past two years had been removed. Also, the new rules allow departing executive branch employees to take private sector jobs and then informally lobby the administration, as long as they are not registered as a lobbyist, a type of activity previously prohibited for two years. Registration is required once a person does a certain amount of work for a client.“There is much to like,” Mr. Eisen said of the new executive order. “But it gives nonlobbyists too much leeway when they leave. That is where the biggest problem in the system is: unregistered, shadow lobbyists. They should be getting more regulation, not less.”
He also said, “Trump kept the Obama limits on the revolving door coming into government, but eliminated Obama’s revolving door protections for nonlobbyists leaving government.”
Both are lol right wingers. Full of bile and brainlessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The business as usual comment was made regarding a different issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Eh, that lobbying ban thing was already mentioned in my quote, I didn't comment on it because it seemed a bit unclear whether it meant all lobbying or just some of it. "other lobbying" does not necessarily mean "ALL other lobbying". When I read this for example:
That sounds like he didn't end all lobbying and just placed some restrictions on people hired in the future. Not to forget that he had the ban on Mattis serving in the government waived as well apparently. I guess we will see whether it actually changes something or whether companies and special interests just hire people for five years to use them as lobbyists afterwards, or simply use people who didn't work in the government before as lobbyists etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by your link
We'll see whether this one isn't. This is the same guy who seems to lie on a daily basis and whose staff presents us with "alternative facts" after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by your link
Guess I'm not the only one with doubts. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by your link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nd-are-porous/Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
But hey, if it has a YUGE font it must mean something.Quote:
The five-year ban is also likely to prompt some people to de-register as lobbyists before being considered for Trump administration jobs or to not register as a lobbyists after they’ve left the White House, even if they are involved in similar activities intended to influence public officials.
One sign indicates this may already be happening. A close aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Josh Pitcock — a Washington lobbyist for the state of Indiana — filed paperwork with the Senate on Monday to terminate his status as a federal lobbyist.
Pitcock advised Pence, Indiana’s governor, during the presidential campaign and has lobbied for the state since 2013, earning $280,000 a year to lobby on issues including health-care marketplace exchange rates and resources for the state’s response to the Zika virus, lobbying records show.
:sweatdrop:Forgive me a degree of artistic license, it was too good a segway and I knew you would be able tell my intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Doubts of effectiveness at this juncture, I can understand, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, one that I believe he is likely to improve on. I base that belief on his previous willingness to defer to his cabinate's expertise on issues they disagree on.Quote:
Guess I'm not the only one with doubts. :sweatdrop:
It would seem to me that all seven targeted countries themselves bar people from entry based purely on nationality. If so, I hope that any citizens of these countries now expressing their indignation at the US ban have already expressed their indignation at the bans in place in their own countries. If not, now would seem to be an excellent opportunity.
Yeah, well, this whole cabinet thing will be quite interesting in the coming weeks. It's not like there are no potential business interests in a cabinet of millionaires or billionaires. Even if they have no active business ties, they surely all have a lot of friends who are CEOs and so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There's no need for a lobbyist when you have a good friend sitting directly in the office after all. :sweatdrop:
I'd actually be happy if he did drain the swamp so to say, I just don't buy it coming from him. I didn't check the data behind it, but this little graphic is very interesting regarding the potential effectiveness of his immigration ban regarding terrorism and how business interests are probably not of any concern for him:
Attachment 19429
Not to forget that his children running his business is laughable in terms of his being detached from the business...
You should know that this is alarmingly naive. If the analyte was undertaken for political purposes, then it clearly has political ramifications. The question is not one of policy itself but of how policy is used to transform power in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You can't make much of a distinction between "theater" and "substance".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...y-not-against/
Boris Johnson gets an exemption for British Citizens.
At least someone achieved something this week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by headline
I thought Trump just stopped all lobbying, especially from foreign countries. :sweatdrop:
All seven, uh, except Somalia. But who’s counting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
But excellent recommendation. As you know, protesting government decisions in dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan is completely safe.
That leaves war-torn Iraq, with its US supported government, and post-civil war Libya. Do you expect that people, who desperately wants to leave those places, should take time to protest their questionable governments travel restrictions on Israelis before they go?
Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Granted, not all are desperate to leave. That was an exaggeration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
But anyway. So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?
Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?
At least one of them the British may try to avoid seeing on their premises:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ancelled-gets/
That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No, just the policies of your own country; since that is the state that benefits from you and that you benefit from, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.Quote:
Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?
I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.
And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.
I see your point as not one of whether criticism against one exclusionary policy is negated by the fact that targeted parties employ categorically-similar policies, but of whether the targeted parties themselves have grounds to do so in that light.Quote:
That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.
I think they can along the same grounds as third parties can criticize the policy, insofar as they (affected Muslim states) can demonstrate a distinction between the logic of their policies and the logic of the US policy (and so a distinction in criticism of one as opposed to another). I think symmetry is more an outcome than a factor.
As an aside, the footnotes in the Wiki reference some kind of pretty cool passport/visa info site. I can't figure out how to navigate it other than to change elements of the url directly to get different results. Here is an example link. 'NA=<>' is where you put the country codeletters for nationality, 'DE=<>' for destination. I think the default passport setting is "normal passport".
From what I can manage, of the countries refusing Israeli passports
These are apparently non-machine readable passports predating a recent Iraqi passport reform.Quote:
- Admission and transit refused to holders of Iraqi "S" series
passports.
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.
Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.
Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.
Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.
But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.
The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
EU crush puny Britain! :wink:Quote:
If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal?
Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I mean in reference to unilateral action (re)implementing restrictive measures on the citizens of other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I was asserting that the more lasting impacts would be engendered by the specific policy acts undertaken -- and that this was the area receiving too little attention because the more "engaging" theatrics draws the attention.
Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.
The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.
But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Exploiting, as you notate it, "temporal bias" is what the political theatre stuff is all about. Most folks won't dig into the more substantive elements of policy or the implications, preferring the theater. Trumps refugee hiatus isn't, when spelled out, nearly the "Neolithic" policy it is made out to be. Arguably, there are a number of "threat" countries that are NOT listed that are as worrisome as the ones he has listed. I am far more concerned with getting a useful vetting policy in place then I am with the temporary travel bans. His "wall" order is likely to be more costly to the US taxpayer than his campaign wall promise -- and this is no longer being addressed well at all. Heck, his comments on NAFTA are more profound long term impact as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Thank you for your comment.
However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.
I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).
But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.
Anyway…
You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”
Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.
Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.
Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.
And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.
What is that about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.
Which is right?
Oh, no you don’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?
Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.
The first decision has already been made, and was made by the proposed League of Nations back in WWI even before the US actively joined the war (both sides were trying to woo her and other neutrals with this argument). 1 is the default. The US, backed by the UK, made the decision to ignore this in favour of argument 2. We can safely say that argument 2 is no longer fashionable. So we default back to argument 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Within argument 1 is the assumption, barring excessively inhuman practices as prosecuted post-WWII, that states have control of their own internal affairs. Self determination is based on the assumption that foreign states have no right to intervene in the affairs of other states, except where they impinge on the affairs of others. One of these internal affairs, implicit in the formation of cohesive nation states, is border control. Borders are inviolate, and controlled by the state whose borders they are. Borders involving multiple states are governed by interstate agreements. Where one side wishes to differ, this difference is governed by the principle of reciprocity. If one side wishes to make a different arrangement, other sides are entitled to reciprocate in the same manner. No outside agency is entitled to impose its decision on another.
If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.
I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades. :shrug:
I'm not sure whether his approval ratings reflect that at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think you made some excellent contributions and voiced your concerns very well. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Right is obviously the conservative option. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.
There was little secret about the agenda of the neocons. I was aghast at the time that people were buying the WMD argument, when it was plain that they were based on ideology. Or as I called it at the time, idiocy. That liberal democracy could be spread like an ink spot on blotting paper. The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
There is no butting and umming about times and circumstances. It's been clear since WWI that argument 1 is the default. There is no void of argument where you decide how much of each to apply. Argument 1 applies unless a sovereign nation agrees otherwise. If they agree otherwise, then the subsequent agreement applies. But in the absence of such an agreement, argument 1 applies.
I might accept ideological consistency from someone like Bush or Blair, who genuinely believed in argument 2. In such a case, I wouldn't call the hypocrites. I'd call them idiots instead, as I did in 2003 and subsequently as it turned out as badly as I'd expected. But anyone who criticised the US and UK for going into Iraq has no right to argue that they should not be held responsible for their governments. Argument 2 was a genuine attempt to establish a different paradigm from argument 1. If they don't want argument 2, then argument 1 is what they're stuck with.
Hey, yeah, too bad for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In my humble opinion, there is a vast difference between blasting regime-change all over another country and protesting discriminatory policies, do you agree? I practice the latter. My protests in this regard relates to my concern that other countries might begin copying these restrictions. Well that and the fact that I find this ban utterly distasteful.
Have a nice evening.
The people who perpetrated these attacks cannot be argued with anyway, hence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Basing your policies and opinions solely on the opinions of extremist idiots is setting yourself up for failure IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Might as well listen to the Neo Nazis then because if we don't, they'll complain all the time... :dizzy2:
That's true for leftist extremists as well as rightist ones. The choice between two completely opposed options is usually some extremist thing.
Take appeasement before WW2, that's your argument 1. Now it can be argued that an allied invasion in Germany prior to the outbrak of WW2 would have increased German resentment etc., but that's why the world and politics can be complicated, not a reason to resort to simplistic solutions. Had the allies exposed the death camps during such an invasion and installed a democratic government again, it may have actually worked. :shrug:
Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.
And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...
I strongly disagree with the UK's choice of government and the decision it made in June last year. But I have to live with it, and deal with it in whatever small way I can within the UK, as an individual. Whatever the UK ends up with as a result of Brexit, even though I strongly disagree with it, I don't expect the EU to ameliorate it in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump. Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word). Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good. Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good. Limiting government funding of abortion is good. Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.
I find if I actually look at what Trump's doing and ignore whatever is coming out of his mouth, he's actually ok so far. Though, I tend to think it may be due more to the advisors he is delegating power to, than through his own action/ideas. Because, I still think he's a twit. :yes:
Yes about the camps, but I thought the appeasement policy was widely seen as a huge failure? Would you say it was the only right thing to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
How exactly has Trump rolled back regulatory overreach by issuing one presidential decree after the other? Maybe I missed one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Didn't he regulate the borders far more? Then he also regulated lobbying, tries to regulate outsourcing and offshoring efforts, etc.
As for the whole "the cabinet will mellow him", "he can't do anything without the parliament" and so on, according to this German article, people said the exact same things about Hitler when he was made chancellor...
http://www.zeit.de/2017/05/adolf-hit...nung-jahrestag
Other quotes include "I got Hindenburg's trust, in two weeks we'll have cornered him that he squeams" and that Hitler would now have to prove "that he is capable of being a statesman". Many people also saw him as a puppet of other actors such as vice chancellor von Papen.
Of course I have no idea why or how any of that could be relevant for this thread. :rolleyes:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...34/664/417.jpg
I have seen this as well, though my experience of it was tempered by the inclusion of this nugget of information; the nations listed were identified by the Department of Homeland Security as risk nations during the last few years and had resulted in the same seven being targeted with travel restrictions in a bill signed by the previous administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
One story told is that Trump is simply using the restrictions Obama laid down as a template to ratchet up restrictions quickly before he can compose a better plan, another is that those nations exempted are allies and or strategically vital to the fight against ISIS and pissing them off would be a bad idea.
With this level of information available whichever explanation you believe that is likely predicated on your willingness to give trump the benefit of the doubt.
Boris may have been born in america he isnt under it's employ, at least not yet :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Immigration is not a right but a privledge that any sovereign nation is entirely justified in restricting as they wish, So yes too bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Saying this at this point is like hoping that the train brakes will kick in while the train is still going 30 kph and about 20 feet away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Like banning people from entire nations from immigrating, devaluing protections of the environment and protected groups and fuck knows what else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
How? With an avalanche of unconstitutional reforms focused solely on making the US dirtier, meaner and more isolated and repressed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Pipelines leak. A lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
How in the fuck do you decide what a regulation is or what it includes? This is going to work out great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Replacing:
Regulation 1: Org must do A.
Regulation 2: Org must do B.
Enacting:
Regulation 3: Org must do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I...
Too bad it is going to be used against pollution regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Fuck yeah Beijing skies!
Lord love a duck. The tone of these posts suggests that impeachment would fall short, and that summary execution for thought crimes is the only acceptable measure for Trump.
CHILL....he is just another occupant of the oval. No need to check the scalp for tattoos.
Ok...Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Not as much as railcars, tanker trucks or ships. They also explode a lot more than pipelines. A lot more.Quote:
Pipelines leak. A lot.
Murdering defenseless children is heinous.Quote:
Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous.
Incompetent in that it was rolled out with little to no warning for the agencies tasked with implementing it and then issuing contradictory statements on what to do with current visa/green card holders... first let them back in, then not, then let them back in. I guess they got it right 2/3 of the time.Quote:
Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US.
Not so different from Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers and spying on members of the press, huh? See, this is a problem I have with the media and liberals in regards to Trump. They're completely losing their minds- the level of signal to noise is completely out off the charts. I think it's only a matter of time before Trump does something truly reprehensible- but with all the partisans wailing, gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes every time Trump farts, it's going to be much harder to see it and give it the coverage it deserves. Basically, it's going to be a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. Trump doing something you disagree with is not the same as the second coming of Hitler. All your constant howling is doing is making it that much easier for him to brush you off when you have a more serious criticism.Quote:
He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.
So much fuzz not enough facts. I can only assume everything I read is from some damnable KGB agent in some Moscow hovel. They get one pair of blue jeans and go right back to hating the capitalists.
in any event, I can't get behind a man who will leave those who collaborated with American forces out to dry. Those muslims did more for this country than Trump. It's unforgivable to pick up sticks and leave them high and dry.
Keep thinking about it. You're a smart guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Would you like one on your property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Placing the value of a non-viable formation of cells over a living human being is insane. Who knows? They might be a threat. Better extinguish it before it turns 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuacCIchzuc
You want to talk about saving children? Start with the ones that have already been born.
It shouldn't have been an executive order. At all. You don't make an executive order of this scale and complexity based on arbitrary and cloudy guidelines. Complex thinking is something that seems to elude this administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Only one post and you immediately go off on about liberals and Obama and whatnot, and then mention Hitler. One post and you are a victim of the liberal agenda. Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You must have missed the memo, but Russia is now your buddy and Uncle Putin your best friend,while it is the dirty Chinese who are now source of all evil. The process of deciding which Muslims are good and which are bad is still ongoing, but its has been so for the last 50 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Thanks. Your sympathy is heartwarming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I am not even talking about immigration. I am talking about personally being denied entry into an entire country. The reason for which is that I am suddenly tainted somehow. Nevermind how I live my life or who I am – my birthplace condemns me.
I can only speculate that your callous disregard in this matter is because you assume such discriminatory measures will never affect you.
On the contrary, he voted for it last June. I was against it, but I'll have to live with it anyway because the likes of GB voted for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
I am sorry. Contrary to what? I am not sure how this relates to my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What discriminatory measures has he (Greyblades?) voted for, that you have to live with?
By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.
I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.Quote:
Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.
It seems that we have fully moved away from politics being a rational argument, to it being like one of those arguments with people who are incoherent and inconsistent. So there is no agreed framework or reference. Anyone can blurt out any old shit and any objections or thoughtful responses are just drowned out by a tidal wave of such blurting.
Brexit presumably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
You make strong posts btw.
----
DAPL should not really be getting this much opposition, and opposition on the basis of pipeline vs. other transport modes is a red herring. If the procedures are complete and the property is secured, go ahead with the damn thing.
On the other hand, abortion and regulations are pretty much the best things ever.
----
Here's some historical perspective on Hitler and the destruction of the Jews (skip to 6:51 if lazy):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuAUlCemH68
I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.
And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.
When Germany remilitarized Rhineland during 1936 the WW1 Allied powers gained a casus belli against Nazi Germany. After a clear violation of a international treaty, there was no need for an preemptive strike. The cause for war against Germany was there, but the Western allies did not use it. So those circumstances really dont apply as example of preemptive forceful regime change conducted by an external power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Of course this is a complicated issue and there is no simple answer, but how i see it. If you meddle with internal affairs of others without their consent the responsibility concerning the outcome lies with you afterwards.
It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
The question isn't which is right but who decides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Again, they said the same thing about Hitler, see Monty's video as well in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Saying the goal of protesters is somehow execution or something like that is a strawman or whatever you call it, I'm pretty sure most of them would be okay with Trump being less extreme as a result of public pressure for example. Public pressure usually doesn't come from shutting up though. When Obama got elected he was declared the antichrist as well and people said he would come to prosecute them for owning guns etc., so in a way it's just typical partisan American behavior and you should just chill as well. ~;)
Now you may wonder why I made the Hitler comparison then, well:
1. It's funny for me.
2. Trump actually did announce plenty of outrageous things and seems to show more authoritarian behavior than Obama. And then I trust some of his supporters and especially that Bannon-dude even less than Trump himself. That he raised Bannon to such important positions is what I'd find worrying. I wouldn't even think of Bannon-dude as a mellowing force in his cabinet, more like a stirring one... And Trump removed some experienced generals from permanent positions, they might have been mellowing forces... :wall:
Remember when Hitler put the extremists in all the important positions? :sweatdrop:
That would seem like an uninterrupted continuation from Trump's election campaign then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Preemptive regime change sounds weird. Iraq was said to be a preemptive strike because Iraq was supposedly planning a strike with its WMDs and was supposedly harboring terrorists. The regime change was more of a by-product in the official narrative IIRC. While there may have been doubts about the WMDs and the terrorism ties at the time, there was obviously sufficient support to make them go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
And yes, it's a complicated issue because trade can already be seen as meddling in other peoples' affairs. If Trump punishes corporations for building or operating factories in Mexico, how is he not meddling with Mexican affairs? He's actively destroying jobs in Mexico and Mexico cannot realistically hope to do anything about it other than symbolic measures.
It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.
With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".
I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.
So who has the right to decide, in your view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I disagree with this. I think we should expect (as in require) the same from authoritarian countries as we do from liberal ones; even if the issue in question is much less serious than other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
So if one happens to meet, for example, a Syrian Assad supporter who is angry about not being able to travel to the US, they could be challenged about the travel ban in place in their own country. Scenarios like that is what I had in mind when I wrote the first post. Don't let people off the hook.
Even if you do expect more from democratic countries, the US travel ban is still typically less serious than things like people dying of treatable diseases, extreme poverty etc. It just shouldn't be high on the list, because there are much worse things going on, according to this logic.
Beyond travel bans typically being less serious than things like extreme poverty and genocide, I have not intended to say much about its seriousness.Quote:
And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.
Interesting pre-war perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Also a question: How do they ban people with dual nationality in practice? Is there some note in their passports that says they also have another nationality or why can't they just leave the banned passport at home and get in with the other one?
I've heard of people who try to get as many nationalities as possible for various reasons, do they have to let each new one be entered into all their other passports? Or is this some secret shenanigans where the NSA hacks all national databases and compares all the data? :sweatdrop: