| Author |
|
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4940
|
| Posted: 18 November 2015 at 9:31pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
What I meant by that statement is that when the US went into Germany and Japan, they actively modified the behaviour and politics of these countries in order to stabilize them. When the US went to Iraq, they kept on saying over and over how they had no intention of nation-building or staying to help, other than to prop up a corrupt leadership.
Didn't the US actively reduce the influence of Shintoism in the Japanese society during the occupation? Not too sure about that but I think so.
The whole area needs its maps redrawn. A major problem is that there is so much tribal thinking in the region. Redrawing the maps to better show these regional differences would make a huge difference. Of course it will never happen and we just go right along with the status quo.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
James Reese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 July 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: 19 November 2015 at 8:22am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
A few interesting things in the last couple of days. I haven't seen any of this mentioned here. I also want to say that I think a lot of what has been accomplished around the world this week that we know about has been tremendous for such a short amount of time, especially in France, Belgium and Honduras.
5 Syrian men with fake Greek passports were caught in Honduras yesterday. Their intent was to come into the United States.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/18/report-u s-bound-syrians-arrested-honduras-fake-passports/76016812/
ISIS has announced plans to hit New York City in addition to Washington DC.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/us/new-york-isis-video-threat/
The majority of Americans do not want Syrian refugees admitted into the United States due to security risks, according to a new Bloomberg poll. Only 46% of Democrats support continuing the program. Americans are divided on the use of ground troops pretty evenly, with this issue split more obviously among party lines. One of the interesting things about this poll to me is that people don't seem to be overly partisan in their opinions, overall. It's not like 96% of Democrats think one way and 98% of Republicans think the other way like we've seen in recent years. This is a complicated problem we are dealing with and it seems people get that. Being overly partisan accomplishes nothing.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/syrian-refugees-poll- paris-obama-republicans-isis/index.html
From today's Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-governors-push-b ack-against-obama-seek-halt-to-refugee-flow/2015/11/18/d76df 814-8e65-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
"The House is scheduled to vote on legislation Thursday that would block refugees from Syria and Iraq from coming to the United States unless the government can verify that they pose no threat. Obama has threatened to veto such legislation."
I don't have any objections to vetting these refugees as thoroughly as possible. Not sure why anyone would be opposed to this. If somebody on here agrees with the potential veto of this bill can you explain why (assuming its a clean bill without defunding Planned Parenthood or something buried in it).
"Earlier this week, Obama accused Republicans who have called for a suspension of the program of giving in to “fear and panic” in the face of the terrorist attacks and mocked them for being afraid of “widows and orphans.” "
Are we only letting women and orphans in going forward? Is this a factual statement? According to the United Nations demographic breakdown of Europe, 62% of the refugees are men, 22% children and 16% women. According to the State Department, we have only let in 2% of combat age males with no family (what is the percentage with family?). Is this now going to 0% with the 10,000 admitted over the next year and 100,000 the year after that?
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/state-department-onl y-2-of-syrian-refugees-in-us-are-militar#.fv1pWZp5Kr
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 19 November 2015 at 11:19pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
James Reese wrote:
| 5 Syrian men with fake Greek passports were caught in Honduras yesterday. Their intent was to come into the United States. |
|
|
This story illustrates the fact that barring refugees is not an effective way to block terrorists from entering this country. A ban against admitting refugees does absolutely nothing to stop guys with fake passports from entering the country from Europe. Nor does it stop guys with real passports who happen to be both European citizens and terrorists. It's notable that so far all the Paris terrorists who've been positively identified were European citizens. A refugee ban would not have kept any of them out of the US.
There already is a lengthy and thorough process of screening refugees. It takes anywhere from 18 months to 3 years and relatively few people get through. Refugees are not being admitted to this country helter skelter or in the same volume and manner as they are in Europe. If the terrorists want to get agents into the US, it is far more effective and quicker to use European citizens than to try to slip someone through as a refugee and then have to wait several years for him to get screened and approved. It's not like there's a shortage of radical Islamic terrorists who are Europeans.
Banning refugees is another example of people's desire to feel like they are Doing Something about the terrorist problem, but it would be ineffective and easily circumvented. Masquerading as refugees is probably the slowest, most difficult, and least efficient way for terrorists to get into the US.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 19 November 2015 at 11:21pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14816
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 12:10am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I don't have any objections to vetting these refugees as thoroughly as
possible. Not sure why anyone would be opposed to this. If somebody
on here agrees with the potential veto of this bill can you explain why
(assuming its a clean bill without defunding Planned Parenthood or
something buried in it).
-----
If I understand the SAFE act correctly:
1) It requires the FBI to do a separate investigation from Homeland
Security's screening and have three high-level government officials sign
off on each refugee. It seems to me that doubling the bureaucracy will
tie up the process and potentially take away FBI resources from other
potential threats.
2) It only applies to refugees from Syria and Iraq. So while the FBI is
tied up re-screening actual refugees, the terrorists will be slipping in
with fake passports from other countries.
This is legislation to play to the scared masses that puts us at more
risk, not less.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Leigh DJ Hunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 February 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1570
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 6:39am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
P.S. i`ve seen no anti-muslim rhetoric,everyone seems to be agreed that it`s the act of a minority.
You must not be on Facebook. -------------------------------------------- It's gone beyond rhetoric. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/620550/Migrant-crisis-te rrorism-EU Meanwhile there's a hotel/hostage situation in Mali....
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132342
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 6:51am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
A ban against admitting refugees does absolutely nothing to stop guys with fake passports from entering the country from Europe.•• I am presently undecided on this matter, but I feel I must dispute this blanket statement. If nothing else, barring refugees would at least reduce the scale of the problem. And, sadly, in the world we have created for ourselves, every little bit helps.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 11252
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 7:52am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
`It`s gone beyond rhetoric`
Conversely a U.K. family who converted from Islam to Christianity are being hounded and attacked(The husband is currently in hospital with a shattered kneecap and head injuries).It works both ways!
The trouble is,Europe should not be like the U.S. where you can go from state to state freely.Allowing unrestricted access from country to country is allowing terrorists to travel without restriction.It`s a nice dream,but unworkable in realityBy all means allow refugees in,but you must vet them and know exactly who you are allowing in,if this means them staying in holding centres,until approved,so be it.Beggars cannot be choosers.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
James Reese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 July 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 7:54am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
It takes anywhere from 18 months to 3 years and relatively few people get through. Refugees are not being admitted to this country helter skelter or in the same volume and manner as they are in Europe.
***
Up until know I would agree with you. So far, it seems that we have let in a total of 2,000 refugees at a rate of 250-500 per year. So, in the next 2 years why has a quota of 110,000 been implemented? Why is there a quota at all? So we are going to increase the number of refugees at a rate of 110X (assuming a 1,000 for 2 years currently) which has been up until now the norm. How is this being accomplished? Are we going to have 110X as many people working on this? I've seen nothing that gives me confidence that this drastic increase can be done in a way as thorough as has been done in previous years.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 8:24am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Dealing with insanity may require the temporary suspension of many liberties. As the insane continue to attack vulnerable targets how we enjoy life will take a back seat to safety. I am conflicted on the best way to proceed when it comes to refugees, but my gut says not to let them in. Knowing what we know about the agenda and MO for these terrorists I think it is better to restrict them rather than allowing them to freely move to their respective targets. A lot of innocent people are suffering because of it, but there must be a way to empower them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 8:35am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Another attack in Mali today.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132342
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 8:38am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Benjamin Franklin said that those who were prepared to sacrifice liberty in order to gain personal safety deserved neither liberty nor safety. However, he was not living in a world in which events like 9/11 or these Paris massacres were even possible.Do we surrender our liberties at the risk of finding ourselves in a police state, or do we continue with "business as usual" and risk further attacks here and abroad? Either way, it seems to me, the terrorists win.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3010
|
| Posted: 20 November 2015 at 8:42am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of innocents and tyrants, as Thomas Jefferson didn't say.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
