What if the Americans separate out the Syrian refugees who are hot young women, and just takes all of them? That would be an equitable portion of the problem. It’s in keeping with American values: the Kardashians proved that. And even though that suicide bomber yesterday morning was a woman, if we separate them from the radicalized males, that won’t be an issue. Just get them dating basketball players.
So now you are in favor of direct democracy? That’s going to hurt your conservative street cred.
Not at all. I’m just in favor of what we have, which seems to be more responsive to the public despite all the checks and veto points(or perhaps because of them).
Of course you’ve heard that one about nine out of ten participants in a gang rape agreeing that the current course of action is correct.
Said by someone who thinks that 99 people agreeing to take a chunk of the wealth of the 100th are virtuous and pursuing the only just policy.
This being the SDMB and all, I feel obliged to point out that the lyrics are “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!” It’s aspirational, not descriptive: when the lyrics were written, the Dutch were still the major naval power.
I don’t recall saying that, but I will say that there is a difference between pandering to the fears and bigotry that’s always available in the general consensus, and assuming leadership over the collective “better angels of our nature.”
You tell me which is in play as we slam the door shut on thousands of cold, hungry people whose homes are now blasted waste? “Sorry, we can’t afford to take them in, and also spend the additional money to weed out the terrorist infiltrators, because there’d be less money to spend of football stadiums.”
While obviously you think that 1% of the world owning half it’s wealth is fine and dandy.
See, the thing about using clever rhetorical tricks is that you have to be clever. Pretending that you said something else before is not clever, especially when what you acually said is recorded immediately above.
You said that we are a leader because we can be selective about who we let in. That’s a fucked up definition of leader.
Pretending that you said that we are a leader because the government listens to the people doesn’t make sense, anyway. We’re not unique in that, and doing what people want isn’t particularly remarkable leadership.
It’s interesting that this has turned into a debate on defense spending when the political objections to the refugee resettlement literally have nothing to do with cost.
Miller, I like you, but this response is simply eye-rolling. It isn’t cowardice for a country to consider risk to its populace before proceeding with international aid. Whether or not the idea of terrorist infiltrating the Syrian refugees came from an ISIS spokesman, or France, or Syria, or a guy in the Midwest with a shotgun and a “git 'er done” hat, it’s still a valid possibility. And I want to help people too, but not before considering the danger.
There is nothing cowardly about it. It’s logical.
Clothahump isn’t “considering the danger.” He’s made up dangers that don’t actually exist.
Except that isn’t true, at all, frankly. Oil would be more expensive without Gulf State oil making it to market, but we can weather higher oil costs. Gulf State oil is a low % of U.S. oil consumption. It would be essentially the end of their economy if they couldn’t ship oil, major disparity there. Paying market price for a commodity isn’t a “reward” for spending billions protecting said commodity’s trade routes, we’re paying the same price for Gulf State oil as say, Russia or Belgium would.
We also sent thousands of soldiers on the ground into Kuwait to rescue them from conquest by Iraq, too. We do a lot for the Gulf States above and beyond keep the Straits safe and open.
Thoughts like this are why the U.S. spends more as a share of GDP than any of its NATO allies on defense, and why the U.S. is expected to take the lead in every overseas military expedition–even ones we are lukewarm on.
Like I said, no one else, including our European allies, are playing by these “lofty rules.”
Foreign policy is about national self interest, and it’s time America starts realizing that.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to when you mention whining about taking 25,000 or 50,000–we are proposing we take 10,000. I was the one who said “I don’t care if we take 50,000”, I just wonder why the default is America is expected to help when many countries do not. We generate almost no goodwill by these actions.
What default are you talking about? Every other wealthy western state is taking refugees.
Possibly. I’m considering the danger. I want my government to consider the danger.
Clothahump phrased the idea in a rather dumb way, with falsehoods stated as fact. But the thrust of the idea - that terrorists will see an opportunity to infiltrate our country if we shelter the Syrians - that’s real. That’s possible. And it’s not cowardly to consider it.
That’s what I objected to. Miller’s use of the word ‘cowardly’, when taking the safety of the US populace into account is not cowardly. It’s common sense.
You’re right, my numbers were off–there have been six fighter jets involved in bombing ISIS by Canada. I never spoke as to “numbers of personnel” but I assumed most people with a pulse and a functional IQ understand that six planes involve a support staff around them, including transport infrastructure and ground crews.
I like how your only response to my point out Canada’s feckless and shameful leaching off of the United States military is to just repost how we aren’t meeting our commitments in terms of refugees. Simply put: fuck that argument. Why should we be spending hundreds of billions on defense while Canada refuses to even meet the NATO target and is even pulling back their paltry commitment to the war on ISIS and take a “proportionate share of the refugees” ? If Canada is not willing to meet is military responsibilities then it’s only fair they take a disproportionate share of the humanitarian responsibilities.
Do you have any conception of how much money the United States has spent fighting ISIS?
And we’re largely being pressured to take refugees because European countries don’t want to have to take any more. So it’s still pressure on us by Western allies who themselves don’t meet most of their commitments in regards to NATO. How many refugees have Gulf States or Saudi Arabia or Egypt offered to take? The only one I know for sure that has housed significant number of Syrians (who have entered on visas and not as refugees) has been Saudi Arabia, but even it could do more.
I just am quite simply, tired of countries like Canada and Germany that do not meet the vast majority of their obligations to us as NATO allies wagging their finger at us for not meeting obligations on refugees we never agreed to in the first place. We’ve offered to take 10,000, we’ve not signed on for more than that. We will, most likely, meet those obligations.
The United States needs to recognize the “American century” is over, and quit spending 3x as much as any other country on “meeting our obligations.”
No one is denying that. But if the only way to justify the option of shutting the door is to tell outright, massive lies, then that is driven by fear.
Most every decision is one of balancing benefits against risks, and yes, we should consider that here as well. Then, one considers the steps available to mitigate risks and enhance benefits.
What Clothahump is clearly doing, and what you seem like you may be doing, is not that. He is reacting only to the risk portion of the ratio, and in particular to a dramatic, unrealistic, Fox-esque overestimate of risk and reacting like a scared little girl to that.