Do you not think that attempting to sanction USA is an act of geopolitical suicide? At what cost are you willing to hold them accountable for their foreign policy?
Printable View
Do you not think that attempting to sanction USA is an act of geopolitical suicide? At what cost are you willing to hold them accountable for their foreign policy?
I actually give Trump credit for not starting a war with Iran...yet.
I don't give him credit for having a cabinte full of dick-waving war mongers like Bolton. If he had been on the golf course when that strike order was given, it'd be WWIII now.
I guess it's wait-and-see time. If Trump goes 2 terms I don't think anyone needs me to tell them that it's time to work on economic and military independence from the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm honestly more concerned about the UK shitting the bed as a trading partner than the US. Much of US economy relies on oil exports. For how much longer is that sustainable?
Wouldn't he have had to give that order? I don't think anyone else has the authority to launch a missile strike on a foreign country.Quote:
I actually give Trump credit for not starting a war with Iran...yet.
I don't give him credit for having a cabinte full of dick-waving war mongers like Bolton. If he had been on the golf course when that strike order was given, it'd be WWIII now.
I can believe that he's not very interested in a war with Iran besides what it means for his re-election. I don't think he's personally involved in any provocations like playing chicken over controlled air space, but he put the people in charge who are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
When muricans bring up topics that seem completely unrelated to the conversation, you have to look no further than their state propaganda network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qz8hnoWDAk
350 Migrants is newsworthy?
- DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW BLACK THESE PEOPLE ARE?
With any other potus I'd agree. Not sure about this one. If someone asked him 'should we bomb iran?' during executive time, i'm guessing he'd just nod and grunt and go back to watching Apprentice reruns, and they'd take that as assent.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I believe he's doing what he thinks makes for good TV, nothing less or more. He's not a complicated man.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Don't forget the poorly known fact that Africa isn't even connected to America. You don't learn that in school you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you think he asked until what point he could cancel the attack just so he could later cancel it at the last minute?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Many people don't know that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
First hand account of the conditions in Trump Camps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVqs_mhOA4
That would fit his pattern yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
For all his faults, I don't think Trump is a war monger. He's very happy to stick his chest out but he doesn't seem to like war.
That doesn't mean he can't be talked into it, though. I think if it was a choice between war and giving up something like Michigan or w/e he'd go with war.
The historical precedent for this is Kaiser Bill of WWI fame. He liked talking shit too but got quiet when it came to actual war. There did come a point though when it was too late to stop the chain of events, and the war mongers around him got their way. This is what could happen with Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That is a frighteningly fitting analogy.
If Kaiser retardo doesn't back austria's annexation of bosnia, that eliminates the cause for WWI, and eliminating WWI eliminates the cause for WWII.
Sometimes it is stunning to think back how much damage one lone idiot can do when strategically deployed in the right place at the right time
ya, like him Trump is not really a statesman. Deep inside, he lacks the confidence to assume the responsibility of the job he's managed to stumble ass backwards into. So I suspect he'd be quite happy to do a Kaiser Bill and throw his hands up at some point and say 'not my idea'.
Czar Nicholas was of a similar ilk. Couldn't be bothered to understand the ramifications of mobilizing the Russian Army, so instead decided WWI was 'god's will'.
History is full of such idiots. To think that the present idiot in question is somehow immune to the forces around him seems illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
As appalling as this is, an interesting question is how America got from being the moral leader of the World to 'we dont gaf wat you think, we're going semi-Nazi' in roughly half a century.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
America's geopolitical peak of power took place around 1960, they've been in relative decline ever since.
The critical word here imo is 'decline'. Historically, every country that leads the world starts to lose its shit when it sees that lead slipping away.
Spain in late 1500s. France in 1600s. Britain in early 1900s.
How do they all respond?
"zomg we're losing status! Soon country X will pass us!!" Answer: Small wars we can 'win' to convince the locals we're still the biggest and baddest. Ignore international law because fuck them we're the best. Prioritize military spending over developing the economy.
The outcome is just as predictable. Second place status. No longer the big kid on the block, but try to maintain prestige as long as possible.
China will pass America in the next fifty years. Like before, it will seem impossible until it happens. Like before, it will cost innocents their lives as the previous Superpower goes through its period of adjustment to being a second rate power. Like before, it is inevitable.
What in the world are you going on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm talking about African immigrants trying to get asylum at the southern border. You're talking about African immigrants in the northernmost part of the continental US.
I'm already giving you a video link, because I know all the people in this world haven't had the advantages I've had. If the 2min Fox news clip is too complicated... I just can't. It's not even like this matters. Why did you bring that up? To show that the incentives are so great that namibians are rowing their banana boats from the skeleton coast to nicaragua to cross into the US?
If you want to talk about incentives, what about the incentive to get in before Trump finishes that wall. It's already under construction, isn't it? Some less informed people might actually believe that and try to cross before it's finished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/u...rder-soap.html
Quote:
Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.
Quote:
“Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks,” the inspector general’s office said in its report, which noted that some detainees were observed standing on toilets in the cells “to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets.”
Quote:
...guards wearing full uniforms — including weapons — as well as face masks to protect themselves from the unsanitary conditions.
Quote:
“Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry,”
Quote:
the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.
Let me try to break this down for the European crowd. This will most likely be my only serious/non-trolling post on any of this since I don't like playing Internet debate footsies:
I agree that all of that with kids at the border is a problem. It's a problem with a lot of the same causes as us having African immigrants at the southern border trying to get in.
It's also a problem that such a high percentage of women and girls are raped when trying to cross the border.
There are a lot of problems with immigration at our southern border.
The long-term solution is to create incentives to immigrate legally while having a functional system to allow people to do so. Accepting people hand-over-fist for "asylum" is not the way to do that. Letting people in just to leave them in concentration camps (not that concentration camps are inherently bad) is not the way to do that either.
Having a functional system to allow people to immigrate legally does not mean speeding things up for every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to come to the United States. There's no reason to let people in who are going to simply sap resources and be a net loss for the country as a whole. Some people don't like that notion, but it's the truth.
As it stands now, there needs to be a very serious physical barrier (ie: "the wall") since all evidence points to that being a measure that's both effective and cost-effective over the long run for decreasing the overall amount of illegal crossings at our southern border.
Aside from that, there are also the issues of sanctuary cities, illegals being able to get driver's licenses, rounding up the millions of illegals we have in the US and sending them home, illegals being able to vote in various elections (local and otherwise) and so on and so forth that are very seriously tied to the southern border situation.
However, all of those are small potatoes compared to the influx of illegal immigrants that come through the southern border right now. It's like trying to decorate a ship instead of paying attention to the massive hole in the bottom of it that's taking on water.
The situation you have right now is not unique and it's not unprecedented The EU is taking in about 1,4 million refugees annually. Spare me the baby bullshit about how you can't deal with it unless you get your magic solution. Other countries can deal with much worse, and deal with it humanely.
How's that working out?Quote:
The EU is taking in about 1,4 million refugees annually.
Personally it hasn't affected me at all except for the fact that I now have two Syrian co-workers. I'm not an economist, afaik most economists say immigration is a net-positive... but I honestly don't care for that. People have a right to asylum. Especially if the destruction of their country can be traced straight back to the foreign policy of the country they're fleeing to.
You have to deal with it. You give them a hearing, you decide if they're eligible for asylum and then you process them or you send them back. But you don't put them in camps, give them no legal council, no hearing and just hope they decide to turn back in fear of losing their children.
I know I said I wasn't going to make another serious post, but in all seriousness, I think this could be a fundamental premise that we (and plenty of other people) disagree on: I don't think that people have a right to asylum.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Here you can see the recent massive influx of refugees and the rising amount of illegal immigrants:
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...k/2017/table13
https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/...l-in-a-decade/
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Dunno, pretty sure this Fox news report was accurate. I know they wouldn't lie to us!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5ZLJWQmss
Oh wait, wrong video. Sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGC5tpfAQAE
This is the kind of thing that you seem like you'd like to know about: https://www.twincities.com/2018/04/1...-make-a-point/
He went on to talk about how it was clear that the system was broken because there were people who actually needed the help who could only get $14/month (or less) instead of the $300/month he got while being 100 percent truthful and lawful on his paperwork.Quote:
Minnesota millionaire tells lawmakers he got food stamps to make a point
Millionaire Rob Undersander tells a Minnesota House committee Wednesday, April 11, 2018, that he accepted food stamps for 19 months as a test to see if someone who does not need the aid can receive it. With him is Rep. Jeff Howe, R-Rockville, who has a bill to figure assets into determining whether food stamps should be issued.
^Sounds like it should be fixed.
In other news
https://scontent.fqlf1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2d&oe=5D78C885
The thing with the food stamps is that the system can be setup like that because of the negative social stigma attached to social welfare programs and the fact that people self-regulate when it comes to accessing those services.
It doesn't really need to be fixed until and unless it is shown that people whom do not need these services are taking advantage. A single wealthy person doing it to make a point is not a systemic problem. If that person's actions then motivated hundreds or thousands of otherwise well-off people to collect on food stamps, then it'd be different.
The fact that those programs are so easy to access is part of why they work at all. Poor people whom need that help may or may not have proof of identity, proof or address, a bank account number, etc. Forcing people in need to prove things like that undercuts the ability of that public service to work.
lol you're cuteQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
lol you retreat into a shell when you hear something intelligent that you want to argue against, but don't have the argument.
Meanwhile, at the border:
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06...ntration-camp/
Ok. You keep talking about your fantasies like they have a chance of happening. Trump couldn't get a foot of wall built in 2 years when he had the house and the senate. He shut down the government for 2 months to get a worse deal than he had before. It's not happening. Thinking there's a way to abolish asylum is fantasyland level thinking and even if it were remotely realistic, it wouldn't address the situation right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Right now you have thousands of kids who the government argues don't need soap and toothbrushes to be safe and sanitary. This is not a matter of money. Pence spelled it out: They're holding these kids hostage for wall money and they'll hold them in conditions that facilitate death until congress pays the randsome. There shouldn't even be a discussion if this was negligence or incompetence. This is clearly deliberate torture of children for political gains. You either think that's ok - most republicans seem to think it is, or you don't. What your core philosophy on immigration is really doesn't factor into it. This is a separate issue.
Don't get triggered bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Sure. You know what. I think I'm exactly as triggered as all the sjw's you're triggering so good on the reddit.
Should have kept their asses in Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I was going to post a video of that festival I was talking about. I didn't even register that it's the biggest, period.
https://www.28degreescard.com.au/tra...the-globe.html
I'm a bit disappointed that I can't find a video that properly shows the scale. John McTiernan said about shooting Predator: real jungle doesn't look impressive because you don't see anything, and that 100% applies here. I've been in abject pain for the last three days from running around for 5 hours a day every day. It's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-0WhIRieA
but you can walk for an hour, and then there's a stage twice that size on the other side.
The video is of the first stage from my house.
The light in the background is a slightly smaller stage. There are two stages A LOT larger than this one and a couple roughly equal. 13 stages in total over the next 5 kilometers and it's basically shoulder-to-shoulder most of the way.
I can't find numbers yet. I think it broke 3 million this year. It was an incomprehensible number of people. I don't usually like crowds, but when I do, I like the largest crowds.
https://tv.orf.at/highlights/orf3/do...9002ae9eee.jpg
Looks impressive.
On a side note, what idiot thinks they can get good footage of a concert by holding up their phone? Lol.
They had TV helicopters flying around and the best I can find of that is a 3 second swoop around the main stage at daylight. I'm glad anyone was filming.
Good point! I heard a lot of those little kids came on their own initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Never trust anyone under six.
Did the right-wing coalition ban the media before they got ousted?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Just goes to show you what you can accomplish when you're evil AND organised, as opposed to just evil.
Say Oskar, did the right-wingers ever have an Ausxit as part of their platform, or what was their reason for getting votes?
Lol, "freedom party"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_AustriaQuote:
Political background
Further information: German nationalism in Austria
I guess that's pretty much all I need to know.
It's hard to tell with this country because people moan about everything all the time, but I don't think most people would seriously back an Auxit if it were put to a vote. Our whole political system is very splintered.
This is how our parliament looks like:
https://tubestatic.orf.at/static/ima...01.5645045.jpg
6 parties and a couple 'miscellaneous.'
Blue is nazis 2.0
Black is basically gop in the fiscal sense, meaning they'll do whatever their donors tell them to, but minus the insane religious undertones and racism. Pink is the same as black but pink and campaigns on lgbt and women's stuff. Confuses a lot of people. Green was founded to protest the destruction of one of our biggest national parks, and succeeded. They're pretty well respected even by the people who hate them. The president was the head of the green party for decades. I literally did not know yellow made it until just now. Red is just fine.
The reason I'm telling you this is: it means that for a government to form 2 or more parties have to form a coalition... always. So it's really hard for super insane ideas to get through. Especially the far-right tends to campaign on insane promises, but they'll be kept in check as long as they don't get a majority, which is pretty much impossible.
After watching Chernobyl (highly recommended) I started reading news paper archives from around that time, and it was just when Austria voted on Waldheim. During the campaign it came out that he was a much more enthusiastic nazi than he previously disclosed. Still won the election. Stayed president for one period. The blue party has a solid nazi past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It just wasn't that long ago. Both my grandfathers fought in WW2 - for the nazis ldo. One of them was a socialist and listened to allied radio (punishable by death) so I assume he wasn't all that into it, but you never know. This is Vienna after the annexation by Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IC4qcEsEc
Not everyone was there to say: Hey! Wait a minute! That's not ok.
I heard Goebbels tweeted it was the largest rally in the history of everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I wonder how many of those people were just thinking 'yay we're united with our German brothers' and how many we're actual Nazi ideologues.
I wonder how many thought that about the Reichstag in 1930.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Attachment 1154
But yeah, much less likely to happen nowadays, given how things turned out there.
Interesting fact... they didn't. Their parents took them to the border and tried to smuggle them into a foreign country. Honest question... are these parents the kind of people you want emigrating to whatever country you live in? People who will put their children at risk and break the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I mean I'd be down with taking the children in, deporting their parents back to Mexico or wherever, and finding foster homes for the kids. Only problem with that is it provides incentive. Better would be to stop them getting through in the first place, and prioritise those who attempt to migrate lawfully.
I dunno who that is in the vid you linked but it's crap. Tell me there's some good music at such a large festival? Is there a reggae stage? Is there a beer tent with traditional Bavarian music? Don't tell me Lisa Stansfield was as good as it got (I checked to see who I'd heard of).
Maybe they thought their kids were at less risk than they would be staying in their own country? Or do you think they just don't care about their families but are only looking for that great job they always dreamed of picking strawberries?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And, regardless of the virtues of the people showing up at your border, do you not think you have a responsibility to at least try to feed and wash them? Especially since, as coco pointed out, it's roughly the same number as have been showing up for years?
Incentive for desperate people to give up their kids so they don't have to face whatever horrors exist in their home country? Yeah, that's really opening yourselves up to be exploited.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Better yet would be to follow international lawQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted in 1948, guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries.
So let's take a hypothetical: France goes under in a civil war. A hundred thousand people show up at Dover over the course of several years. What should we do with them - put them in concentration camps so they're discouraged from running for their lives? Or hope they take the hint and try their luck somewhere else?
So you're in favour of taking in an entire population?Quote:
Maybe they thought their kids were at less risk than they would be staying in their own country?
Yes, no argument here.Quote:
do you not think you have a responsibility to at least try to feed and wash them?
Why do only the ones that show up at the border have these problems? And if they don't, why take in the ones who try to cross illegally at the expense of those who attempt to do so lawfully?Quote:
so they don't have to face whatever horrors exist in their home country
International law does not dictate that a nation must admit migrants.Quote:
Better yet would be to follow international law
Are Mexico in a state of civil war? Or are you referring to the people who have fled various parts of Central and South America, and travelled through a peaceful Mexico, to get to USA?Quote:
France goes under in a civil war.
Let's do this a different way... the UK becomes embroiled in civil war. Do I think I have the right to waltz to whichever country I can get to? No I don't. At the moment, I have the right to go to France, and French people have the right to come here. But let's fast forward a year or two and assume we're out of the EU, and we no longer have freedom of movement. I no longer have the right to go anywhere else.That might not stop me trying, but if I got politely told to fuck off, I wouldn't think I was being treated unfairly. I mean, why should I be allowed in but not the rest of the population? What makes me special? In fact, if I turn up at the border with a backpack, I'm less special than the people who actually apply for asylum before arriving.
Not sure what you mean by 'take in' here or 'an entire populaton'. I'm in favour of looking after people who show up at your border, whether they do so legally or not. By 'looking after', I mean managing their basic hygeine and nutrition needs, not giving them all their own house and a beamer.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Good, then you're in agreement with basic human decency. That isn't what appears to be happening at the US border, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Relevance? Are you suggesting the government is equally responsible to go into a war-torn country and feed and clothe people, as it is to do the same with refugees that show up at its border?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
First, they're not all trying to cross illegally. Many are presenting at the border to seek asylum. They're also being put in 'camps.' Second, if some are crossing illegally they should be given low priority for asylum status, but they still need to be fed and housed in appropriate conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not sure exactly what the laws are, but there seems to be an international consensus that you need to deal humanely with refugees dragging themselves to your border. And I'm fairly sure the humane treatment of prisoners is guarded by international law.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why not? If you can get to the country of your choice, what does geography have to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's not how it works lol. There's no 'you can go to a country your native country is part of an economic union with, but that's it.' Otherwise why would the Syrian refugees be getting asylum all over the world? No-one in Canada or most of Europe (including the UK fwiw) said 'sorry fuck you, we don't have a trade deal with Syria. You can't come here.'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can argue this if you want; I'm just saying what the international consensus is. If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice. If you're in Sierra Leone and want to escape the child killer gangs with your family, you aren't expected to go to the nearest border (say Nigeria) and apply for asylum. You can go anywhere in the world you can get to, and by international agreement they have to take you afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But this isn't about the behaviour of the people showing up at the US border and whether they're doing things the right way or not; surely some of those showing up at the border aren't. The question is how the US is treating these people regardless of whether they're doing things the right way or not, and I think we've already agreed the US is out of line in that respect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QYFU9AeOoM
No blankets, no toothbrushes, no chance to bathe.
Forget about the fact that some of these people are immigrants and/or asylum seekers for a minute. Assume they're all in killer gangs caught bringing fentanyl across the border with their kids in tow 'cause they couldn't get a babysitter. There's still no way to justify this. None. It's fucking cruel, end of story.
This doesn't change the fact that priority should be given to legal migrants and not criminals with children in tow.Quote:
Good, then you're in agreement with basic human decency. That isn't what appears to be happening at the US border, however.
I'm merely questioning why only a tiny fraction of the population are turning up at the border. If staying in a country is more dangerous to your children than attempting to cross a border illegally, something is very wrong in that country.Quote:
Relevance? Are you suggesting the government is equally responsible to go into a war-torn country and feed and clothe people, as it is to do the same with refugees that show up at its border?
It's not about fleeing danger, it's about wanting a better life. Or to put that another way... it's economics.
Turning up at the border is not the way to apply for asylum. Not unless you're in immediate danger. People who turn up at the border unannounced should be turned back.Quote:
First, they're not all trying to cross illegally. Many are presenting at the border to seek asylum. They're also being put in 'camps.' Second, if some are crossing illegally they should be given low priority for asylum status, but they still need to be fed and housed in appropriate conditions.
Nope, just the ones who successfully cross the border. Why does USA have to comply with "international consensus" but not Mexico? Those on the Mexican side are Mexico's responsibility.Quote:
Not sure exactly what the laws are, but there seems to be an international consensus that you need to deal humanely with refugees dragging themselves to your border.
Yep. Like I say, I agree detainees should be fed and cleaned. But there's no obligation to admit migrants in the first place. If they're on the Mexican side, they are not America's problem, they are Mexico's/Quote:
And I'm fairly sure the humane treatment of prisoners is guarded by international law.
What's wrong with Mexico?Quote:
The latter.
It's ok, I know the answer... economics.
A nation state has a responsibility to its citizens, not the world's population.Quote:
Why not? If you can get to the country of your choice, what does geography have to do with it?
We're talking about rights here, and it's exactly how it works. Syrians do not have an automatic right to settle in the UK. The French do, currently.Quote:
That's not how it works lol.
Do you think people have the right to seek economic opportunities in whichever nation on the planet they choose?Quote:
If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice.
This isn't quite true, either. You have a right to asylum in the first "safe country" you can get to. You can't simply pick any country in the world. Doing so is a matter of economics.Quote:
If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice.
Attachment 1155Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So, let's see if I got this straight. Canada accepted something like 25k Syrian asylum seeking refugees a couple years ago. Are you saying those refugees had such bad luck that every country they went through on their way from Syria to Canada was unsafe?
Stop. Talking. Shit.
You better stop with all of that logic before you trigger some libtards.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Obama administration tried something similar, but a non-trivial number of the kids ended up in human trafficking situations according to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...port-says.html).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, you didn't get that straight, and once again demonstrate you can't read. I'm saying that Canada had no obligation to take them in. Those that went to Canada chose to go there, and Canada chose to accept them. For the migrants, it was an economic choice. I can't blame them, I'd rather live in Canada than Turkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm going to say "more than a dozen" is a trivial number. But still, do the fucking background check. I can't foster children, because I can't provide a suitable home. That would become very obvious very quickly if anyone did even the slightest bit of research into my circumstances. Each child should have a social worker who maintains regular contact. I had a social worker as a child, I lived in foster homes and children's homes. If anyone tried to force me to work on an egg farm, my social worker would have found out and reported it, and a new home would have been found for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
poop, you said that people have a "right" to go to whichever country they choose, and then tell me I'm talking shit because I point out that's not true, while citing Canada. None of those Syrians had a "right" to go to Canada until Canada granted them that right. Canada chose to accept them. They didn't have to. So... learn to fucking read.
Oh and don't dodge this question please, it's quite important to the discussion...
Quote:
Do you think people have the right to seek economic opportunities in whichever nation on the planet they choose?
You keep trying to make the argument about immigration and who you should let live in your country.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My point was regardless of whether you want these people, they're there. This isn't the first time in world history where large numbers of people show up at a border somewhere. You have a responsibility to feed, clothe, and wash them. Give them a cot, a blanket and a toothbrush. Keep the kids with the parents. Process any asylum claims in a reasonable amount of time.
The US is not doing this and you can't defend this by saying 'but hurr durr some % of the immigrants are bad people', as if that makes it ok to house them in cruel conditions. You can't even treat a serial baby killer waiting for trial as badly as they're treating these people.
We were talking about rights, weren't we? You're trying to tell me that migrants have the right to go where they like. I'm pointing out this isn't true.Quote:
You keep trying to make the argument about immigration and who you should let live in your country.
The migrants who are already in a given country, yes the host nation has responsibilities. That includes feeding, cleaning and processing. I agree with you there. But a nation does not have an obligation to admit migrants from a safe country, and Mexico is a safe country.Quote:
My point was regardless of whether you want these people, they're there.
Poop seems to think it's more dangerous for a Guatemalan family to settle in Mexico than continue through Mexico and illegally cross the border into USA.
Fine, they should have stopped in Mexico. But they didn't. Now they're in your country. Should you treat them humanely or should you treat them cruelly?
If it were any other president but Captain Retard, this wouldn't even be a question.
Depends which side of the border they're on. There's nothing wrong with USA doing their utmost to keep them on the Mexican side.Quote:
Fine, they should have stopped in Mexico. But they didn't. Now they're in your country. Should you treat them humanely or should you treat them cruelly?
Not true. Read that article spoon just liked. The Obama administration couldn't be bothered to conduct background checks. That is cruel, not humane.Quote:
If it were any other president but Captain Retard, this wouldn't even be a question.
Also, you might note that Trump hasn't started any major wars yet. Even Iran, previous administrations would be there by now, but Trump pulled back. I don't think he had ordered strikes then changed his mind, he's simply trying to make Iran think it's that close.
Since Trump hasn't started any major wars, there's currently no Trump-initiated migrant crisis.
I'd argue it's cruel and inhumane to start a war with a country and force people to become unsettled in the first place. Captain Retard is the only president in my lifetime that hasn't done this yet.
Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What wars did Obama and/or Clinton start?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's an article for your reading pleasure poop. I know you're not a big fan of outspoken former ambassadors turned whistle blowers, but he makes some fine points...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-character/
Quote:
I am absolutely convinced that, were Hillary President, the Middle East would now be devastated by the biggest of all the recent wars, and America would have invaded both Syria and Iran by now. Hillary was an enthusiast for the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and she was personally involved in starting the obliteration of the advanced Libyan state on the flimsiest of pretexts. The potential devastation she would have inflicted and the millions who would now be dead, maimed or orphaned outweighs in my view all the harm perpetrated by Trump. So my conclusion is this: I would far rather not have President Trump nor President Clinton, but forced into a straight binary choice I will take Trump. He has a better character; for all his faults he is the only one of the two who is not a psychopathic killer.
How the Trump administration plays out, given the warmongering advisors from the political Establishment with whom Trump has surrounded himself, is a fascinating question. John Bolton is as near evil as any human being can be. Which brings me back to the faux left and their views. In 2013, I spoke in a ceremony at the Oxford Union to give the Sam Adams Award for Integrity, of which previous winners include Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, John Kyriakou, Thomas Drake and myself. Hundreds of students from the “left” at Oxford University were engaged in a rowdy picket against the Sam Adams award aimed to stop the event because of the ridiculous allegations in Sweden against Assange.
Now get this. Exactly the day before, the Oxford Union had hosted an evening with John Bolton. Not a single member of the “left”, who tried to prevent Ray McGovern and I from speaking, had demonstrated against the egregious war criminal, responsible for the death of millions. There could not be a more stark example of the spectacular success of the Establishment in using the false trail of identify politics to split and divert the left, particularly among young people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...t-century_warsQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Speculative and almost certainly wrong. There have been a lot better excuses to attack Iran since 1979 than there are now just because they (supposedly) shot down a drone. They raided the US embassy and took a bunch of Americans hostage in '79 ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Iran is not a pushover and it's a long way from the USA. Fighting a serious war with Iran would have a huge cost in money and lives.
Oh right, I forgot about all those. Did Trump stop any of them once he took power?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Funny how you tell me I'm speculating and almost certainly wrong, then you go on to speculate and are almost certainly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not about being a "pushover". Wars are not meant to be "won". They are meant to cause economic misery and suffering. That would be easy to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So what? Someone says 'if so-and-so were POTUS instead of Trump, it'd be nonstop war.' We'll never know if they're right, so who cares?
Is it that simple?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hilary has a proven track record for supporting wars of aggression. You can say he's speculating all you like, but the truth of the matter is, he is a great deal more qualified to speculate on such matters than both you and I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop