I figured it was because you were Oriental.
Antique, maybe – but not Oriental.
You mean, you’ve never been scrut? Not even once?
You mean -un-. He is inscrutable. That is, more than scrutable.
Who recognizes the source? 
Do you have anything to show they came here disguised as fugitives and asylum-seekers?
When the CIA sneaks someone into Iran, do we have them stagger across the border in rags begging for shelter? Why do you imagine Iran would do it that way?
So you admit that anti-immigrant views are chicken? Thank you for conceding the moral point.
Chicken McFly…
Simply let it be known that if any Syrian refugee tips us to an ISIS goon in their ranks, and it proves to be true, then our Immigration services will take a decidedly more generous view of them.
What never ceases to amaze me is the ability of certain incredibly stupid people to jump immediately from “Not all X are Y” to “Oh, so you believe that No X is Y!”
Not all Muslims are terrorists. “Oh, so you believe that no Muslims are terrorists!”
Not all weather changes are caused by global climate change. “Oh, so you admit that no weather changes are caused by global climate change.”
Etc. ad nauseam. It’s weird. It’s as if they’re unable to engage in formal systematic thought. (Every single one of them! 
)
It’s a million miles away from anything our correspondent from North Stupidia has said…but… Alas, no, if the order came, the U.S. missile forces would execute it. There would not be a mutiny, either in USAF silos nor aboard nuclear-armed submarines.
The U.S. military has taken a lot of steps to make sure that War Games and Crimson Tide are just movies. A lot of the guys would have deep moral reservations…but they would obey the order to launch.
Everything else you said is very much on point, and shows the shallowness of thinking of our inane correspondent. (I’m kind of glad he’s around, as he helps keep me from being the guy who makes the largest proportion of errors!)
And here you go, right back to stupid again.
Do you seriously believe that the nuclear annihilation of an entire country that has not conducted any state actions against our country is “moral?”
You’re beyond stupid. You’re morally insane.
To be fair, I don’t believe that Adaher or anyone else here actually advocates nuking.
I’m not talking about the order to launch… I’m talking about the aftermath. In the days, weeks, months after, when the word comes out that America nuked millions who posed virtually no threat to the country at all, there would be mass resignations, and maybe even worse.
How many Americans would fight for Hitler? Cause that’s pretty much what America would look like if we made an unprovoked nuclear attack. We’d be the biggest villains in the world, all at once.
I would have resigned if we made an unprovoked nuclear attack.
Yes, but somehow he thinks it wouldn’t damage America to do so.
Ah! Yes, definitely a different matter, and I could easily see that kind of protest.
Nations are like corporations. They don’t have morals, they have interests. Like corporations, they often do some cheap moral posturing in order to garner goodwill, but their moral posturing will never be allowed to actually cost them anything.
The whole Arab world should be an international pariah, but they have oil, so they aren’t. China should be an international pariah, but there’s money to be made, so after a brief interlude of moral posturing after Tianemen, countries rushed to do business with China. Iran is a supporter of international terrorism, but the same countries you think would ostracize us over nuking Syria are tripping over themselves to do business there.
Whatever happened to liberals being the international realists? Westerners in general only take moral stands when it costs them nothing, which is basically a point many here have made about the Syrian refugees.
Nuclear weapons are not considered a weapon of first resort by the whole world for a very good reason.
So say the guy that claims that for standing up many Democrats will be punished.
But we now know that you will not be capable of ever making a moral stand like that.
That’s not the unrealistic part. Of course we shouldn’t nuke Syria unless ISIS uses a nuke against us.
What’s unrealistic is thinking that other affluent nations will stop doing business with us and send their people into poverty and themselves possibly into national bankruptcy as a result. If Canada stopped trading with us they’d have to dismantle their health care system. Not gonna happen.
This has nothing to do with nuking someone. If Pepsi killed millions of people, then Pepsi would be damaged.
Nothing the Arab world, China, or Iran has done, at least in the last several decades, comes close to an unprovoked nuclear attack. Killing millions of people, the vast majority of whom posed no threat whatsoever to the US (and even those that did posed no significant threat) is far, far worse than all the Arab terrorism of the last several decades put together; far, far worse than Tiananmen square and all the other Chinese human rights violations of the past several decades, and much, much worse than anything Iran has done since the revolution.
It’s crazy that you can think any of this is comparable to a nuclear strike that would kill millions of women and children unprovoked. Yes, terrorism is very bad and has killed thousands of people, but an unprovoked nuclear strike would be orders of magnitude worse. Hitler-killing-the-Jews-level worse. In this hypothetical, the US just became as bad as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
Your analysis of the aftermath of an unprovoked nuclear attack by the United States is the opposite of realism.
Canada wouldn’t trade with Nazi Germany. Neither would modern Germany. Neither would most of the rest of our allies. You’re nuts if you think they would.
As an individual that helps comprise both a nation and a corporation, I wholly reject that premise.
But I understand that it’s easier to believe it.
.