You will need to read the comments on G2A Put a Boot to get all the background, however in summary:
- I think the USA as a super power has a responsibility to help people if they are down trodden and the USA has a national interest in the situation. This does not mean that we take over their country and force our social values on them. It does mean that we help them establish self rule and some public safety. I compared it to a caring person staging an addiction intervention and paying for treatment. The point being that the country / person may fail to seize the gift they have been given to improve their lives, however the giving of the gift is still important and necessary.
- Now Sean and Jerry seem to think that... Well I think you will need to read their comments...
"If you believe in the "Prime Directive", then you let the Syrian civil war play out, don't you? The reality is that all Donald Trump accomplished with his missile strike was winning a news cycle. The airfield that he struck was operational the next day. Bombing the Assad government went against his pre-existing policy of backing the Assad government as the most effective partner there to fight ISIS. And let's not also forget that while the pictures of the gassed Syrian children were awful, the pictures we don't see from Syria are far worse. The networks can't show us the pictures of the children who have limbs blown off due to mortar fire and other conventional weapons. "Putting a Boot Up Their Ass" may feel good for a moment, but it isn't a strategy."
The point apparently being that destroying 20% of Syria's airforce and kicking Assad in the ass was an insignificant accomplishment towards helping the innocent people of Syria... And maybe it was depending on what Russia does.
But if Syria did use banned weapons on their own people, then let's kick them until they stop... Our Prime Directive may not let us interfere too deeply in the self rule of other countries, but we sure can ensure that the players do not violate the Rules of War that that the people of earth have seemingly agreed to.
Well all that said, the following comments came up.
"Of course the Liberal view seems to be that we should let all refugees come to the USA so they can be cared for here with tax payer dollars. Instead of helping them to stabilize and improve their own country." G2A
"Let that straw man burn, baby, burn!" Sean
"As for my view regarding refugees and Liberals... After listening to Liberals for the last year stomp, accuse people of xenophobia and gnash their teeth in opposition to:
I think my man is pretty solid. Liberals definitely want to help the world's down trodden by inviting them to come to the USA." G2A
- reducing the number of refugees allowed
- improving border security
- deporting illegal workers
- etc
"Which explains why, under the Obama Administration, we accepted fewer Syrian refugees than Canada? Come off your ideological mountain and join us in the real world." Sean
My long time view is that Peace Loving Liberals want to encourage more poor people to move to America where they can be safer and wealthier. Even though according to the Liberals we already have too many poor, under-educated, under-skilled, under-paid, etc legal citizens in America. Therefore the Liberals push for more taxes on the successful, more minimum wages, more free services, more cash payments, weaker borders, more refugees, etc.
And I can understand why the Liberals love these policies. They can feel good by providing sanctuary to the unfortunate of the world while not having to pay the bill. I mean who wouldn't like that feeling.
The problem is that there are roughly 7 BILLION people on this earth and having half of them move to Europe and the USA because their region is unsettled is not a good long term plan. It is a much better plan to help them eliminate their violent abusive Dictators, and then to help them stabilize their home region. Helping the good responsible people of a region to flee their homeland will not help that region or it's people long term.
As for refugees allowed into the USA. If language is any indicator, it looks like we have been resettling a lot of folks from the Middle East and Northern Africa here over the last 10 year. And remember you can blow up the image by tapping on it.
Refugees by Region
Refugees by Region
70 comments:
"My long time view is that Peace Loving Liberals want to encourage more poor people to move to America where they can be safer and wealthier."
Again, you're making up what you think liberals believe and asking me to defend it. Not playing that game.
I don't want you to defend the Liberal position of pretty open borders and accepting more refugees is good. As noted above, that position is pretty clearly established after our last Presidential election.
I want you to admit that there is value in:
- removing violent repressive dictators
- supporting public safety and rebuilding
- supporting learning and fledgling Democracies
- giving the people an opportunity to improve their lives.
Even when the effort does not result in the country adopting your "Liberal Western" values.
"As noted above, that position is pretty clearly established after our last Presidential election."
You don't get to tell us what we believe, John.
Sean,
I have no intention to tell you what you believe...
All I can do is interpret the statements and actions of many Liberals, and interpret what it implies Liberals believe from my perspective.
Let's list some of the typical Liberal positions...
Pro Refugee and Illegal Worker:
- Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
- Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
- Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
- Strongly against deporting Illegal Workers
- Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship
- Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
- Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
Anti-Help People Improve Their Own Country
- Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc)
- Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful sefl governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
Pro-Help People Improve Their Own Country
Now I do understand that Liberals do support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate... And I support this also...
However the unfortunate reality is that this does not work where the Dictators and Cartels are strongest. And that is why at times the US all volunteer military, CIA and DEA operating in foreign countries is a good thing. Unfortunately the peace protests and prayer vigils just are not going to cut it.
Let's go back to your first assumption that the US has some sort of obligation to help people remain or become "self-governing" according to there own wishes, and not to be dictated to by dictators or conquerors, without becoming enmeshed in it ourselves. The example here is the run-up to the Viet Nam war, and its analog in the Star Trek episode "A Private Little War." In both cases the "prime directive" was first violated by helping the natives get and use more effective weapons and tactics against the "outside" aggressor. We sent in a few "advisors" and "military aid," but when that wasn't enough we sent more heavily armed units to "protect the advisors" and then discovered the joy of "escalation." We never got the chance to remake the country to our own liking because too many didn't want to "go there." The best solution seems to be some combination of pin-point strikes as a "shot across the bow" and then letting the natives sort it out.
I really don't know enough about Vietnam to comment... But that conflict seems a lot more like what is happening Ukraine. (ie creeping Communists... Stopping spread by China and/or Russia)
It seems to me that Afghanistan and Iraq are very different. In these cases, we eliminated a threatening leadership group and created a power void. Thereby creating our obligation and opportunity.
Your interpretation of liberal positions is based on stereotypes, not reality. I'll just talk about a few to show you the error of your ways because I don't care to waste my time debunking your whole stupid post.
"Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
- Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones"
At the rates that President Obama desired to bring in Syrian refugees, Canada would have taken 5x as many on a per capita basis. Germany has taken in over 1 million Syrian refugees. American liberals don't support unlimited immigration from anywhere.
Also, no one has demonstrated that current refugee vetting process (which takes at least 18 months and often more than 24 months) is substandard in any meaningful way.
"Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship"
This passed the Senate on a *bipartisan* basis just a couple of years ago.
"Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful sefl governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc)"
Mainstream American liberals supported the war in Afghanistan because it was directly related to the attacks on 9/11.
It should also be pointed out that the Republicans in Congress by and large opposed President Obama's request for an AUMF for Syria in 2013.
Let's go back a few posts:
"I want you to admit that there is value in:
- removing violent repressive dictators
- supporting public safety and rebuilding
- supporting learning and fledgling Democracies
- giving the people an opportunity to improve their lives."
Yes, there is value to all of these things. The question, though, is not whether there is value or not. The question is the trade-offs you have to make to achieve that value.
When you look at Iraq, for instance, we have lost nearly 4,500 soldiers there. We have incurred over $2 trillion in direct expenses as a result of that war. Over 175,000 civilians have been killed in the chaos that was unleashed, according to some estimates. Iraq, as a country, has suffered through 14 years of sectarian violence since out invasion. The country is now a haven for terrorists, which is was not previously. The overthrow of the Iraqi government removed a counterbalance against Iranian influence in the region. I would argue that the costs haven't been worth it -- and all of these risks were knowable (to some extent anyway) before the invasion (and in fact, there were people predicting it!).
And we haven't even achieved a lot of the "value" you claim that we had the opportunity to create. Large chunks of the country are still controlled by a violent, repressive regime. The "rebuilding" has been slowed by massive corruption and graft. As of last year, most sections of Baghdad still didn't have electricity 24 hours a day.
So it's not a black and white question as you always like to reduce everything to.
Over at this MP post, Mark left some wise words. "Pro tip: if you work for someone and they lose, get drunk for a week. If you aren't over it when you sober up, maybe you were working for a cult, not a campaign." Mark
To which I replied: "Excellent Tip: Sometimes I think that the Far Right and the Far Left are behaving more and more like cults..." G2A
My point is that I don't think either side is interested in the gray zone. I love the gray zone and spend most of my efforts describing the Left, Right and the areas between them. And I do realize that people can LL, LM, LR, ML, MM, MR, RL, RM or RR.
Now I am excited at the idea that someday a LL, LM or LR will say:
- let's go bomb them and save those civilians.
- let's occupy that country to help them become stable.
- let's ensure that ZERO illegal products or people cross our borders.
- let's deport all illegal workers to raise the wages for our less fortunate legal workers.
I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
I like black and white, I do, and I dislike "gray areas." My preference is to break these complex situations down into individual pieces, and rate each of them as "pass/fail" based on their own criteria, and then compare with what in hindsight may have been better alternatives, based on what could reasonably have been known at the time. For example: removing Saddam-success. liberating Kuwait-- success. Ending the oil fires Saddam set-- big success. Standing up a new, representative government-- initial success, and most thought at the time it would last. Whether our rapid departure under Obama contributed to the current instability and embrace of Iran, well...
"Sometimes I think that the Far Right and the Far Left are behaving more and more like cults..." G2A
So, one cannot rationally take a far left or far right position, as you define those terms? Someone that would say they are "very conservative" or "progressive" doesn't get to have an opinion on public policy? Perhaps those enraged by election outcomes should consider that, maybe, government has too much power and elections matter too much more than they should?
"I love the gray zone and spend most of my efforts describing the Left, Right and the areas between them."
Bullshit, John. Your interpretations of "liberal positions" ain't in the gray zone.
As for refugee rates... I guess I am indifferent to what Canada and Germany are doing. They seem to believe in helping people to escape their country instead of helping them to stabilize and improve their country.
This always reminds me of our inner city school problems... We made it easy for good concerned families to flee those neighborhoods and schools... Which of course led to the degradation of those areas. It seems this works for Syria also.
The question really should be, will accepting these refugees be good or bad for America and it's citizens? If bad, then let's press them to stay home and then let's help them fix their own country when possible.
That's because the Liberals are on the Left, the Moderates are in the middle and the Conservatives are on the Right... So the gray zone rests some where between the Left and Right...
As for IRAQ... Sometimes interventions are expensive and fail...
Does this mean that one should not do them?
I have a friend who spent tons of money and time trying to shift his addicted irresponsible law breaking daughter to a more responsible path. In the end it failed and she is now else where dealing with her demons.
Does that mean he shouldn't have invested that time and money into trying to help her?
The United States has admitted ~18,000 Syrian refugees since the start of the crisis. That's hardly some sort of open borders dystopian nightmare.
Jerry,
Everyone is entitled to their position, even the cultists. This is America !!!
However G2A is about slicing, dicing and discussing them.
"Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc."
Remember one of your favorite sayings... "you can agree with me or can be wrong..."
"I have a friend who spent tons of money and time trying to shift his addicted irresponsible law breaking daughter to a more responsible path. In the end it failed and she is now else where dealing with her demons"
This is not a comparable situation.
"That's because the Liberals are on the Left, the Moderates are in the middle and the Conservatives are on the Right... So the gray zone rests some where between the Left and Right..."
You're still failing to understand that your characterizations of "liberal positions" are caricatures.
And in place of "gray areas" perhaps you should say "muddled thinking places." Sometimes, the person on the Far Left has the right idea or solution to some problem. More often, in my experience, it is somebody on the Right and, because of the disinclination to agree, their idea gets demonized, unfairly, as coming from the Far Right. My usual response is, "I may be as far right (or any of the other ad hominems so freely slung about by those who have no other argument) as you say, but that does not make me wrong."
I still like my characterization of good government, where everybody (that's left and right in today's bipolar world) gets together, decides what is the best course of action, and does that. Boy, am I dreaming!
Again, it is exceedingly rare that the "compromise" or "moderate" policy is the best in any situation. Compromise and Consensus are two different things, and by now whenever I hear "bipartisanship" I tend to run screaming from the inevitable disaster which that term has come to entail.
"I still like my characterization of good government, where everybody (that's left and right in today's bipolar world) gets together, decides what is the best course of action, and does that. Boy, am I dreaming!"
You mean like single-payer health care, which is the option preferred by the most Americans?
Anonymoose
Sean,
"not a comparable situation" Why not?
Are the millions of women, children and men of Afghanistan victims who as human beings should be given assistance, or not? Are they less deserving than that young woman who is trapped by her own addiction? If the Afghanistan society fails to kick the bad habits, should we have never tried?
The Parents in this case had the money and desire to try to help their adult child. Please remember that they were no longer legally responsible for her. America certainly has the money and power to help some of the world's powerless, the question is do we have the desire?
Sean,
Please tell me which of my descriptors are exaggerated? Please remember all the accusations cast by Liberals against Conservatives during the last year.
Screaming... xenophobes, bigots, racists, etc all for trying to control our borders, minimize the risk of wolves sneaking in with the immigrant sheep, resisting pardons/paths and enforcing our deportation laws.
Personally I think it is the Liberals who love to blow the Conservative agenda out of proportion.
Jerry,
I am most certain that the far Left would be happy to stop compromising and have it all their way... Would that be better for you?
"it is exceedingly rare that the "compromise" or "moderate" policy is the best in any situation"
Anonymoose,
I doubted your comment, but it looks like you are correct.
Pew Results
WP Majority
Sean, For your convenience... Here are the descriptors consolidated...
- Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
- Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
- Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
- Strongly against deporting Illegal Workers
- Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship
- Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
-Strongly support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...
- Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
- Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc)
- Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful sefl governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
I'll need to compare them to the Democratic Platform when I get a chance.
Determining whether or not to take military action in a foreign country is not the same decision as trying to help one's family member who is struggling with addiction. If you can't understand why that's the case, I can't really help you.
"Please tell me which of my descriptors are exaggerated?"
I would argue every single one of them is exaggerated in some fashion. As I said before, I have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk all of them. We have had this same conversation over and over and over and over again and you persist in saying the same things over and over and over even after I provide my links and data. So why should I waste my time? You ignored all but one of the points I raised in the couple of descriptors I did respond to. You're not actually interested in having an informed conversation on these issues, you're just interested in repeating your tired philosophy ad nauseum.
Sean,
Yep, probably no helping me since I see children as children whether they are here or there.
As for your comments so far...
"Again, you're making up what you think liberals believe and asking me to defend it. Not playing that game."
"You don't get to tell us what we believe, "
"At the rates that President Obama desired to bring in Syrian refugees, Canada would have taken 5x as many on a per capita basis. Germany has taken in over 1 million Syrian refugees. American liberals don't support unlimited immigration from anywhere. Also, no one has demonstrated that current refugee vetting process (which takes at least 18 months and often more than 24 months) is substandard in any meaningful way."
"This passed the Senate on a *bipartisan* basis just a couple of years ago."
"Mainstream American liberals supported the war in Afghanistan because it was directly related to the attacks on 9/11. It should also be pointed out that the Republicans in Congress by and large opposed President Obama's request for an AUMF for Syria in 2013."
"Yes, there is value to all of these things. The question, though, is not whether there is value or not. The question is the trade-offs you have to make to achieve that value.
"When you look at Iraq, for instance, we have lost nearly 4,500 soldiers there. We have incurred over $2 trillion in direct expenses as a result of that war. Over 175,000 civilians have been killed in the chaos that was unleashed, according to some estimates. Iraq, as a country, has suffered through 14 years of sectarian violence since out invasion. The country is now a haven for terrorists, which is was not previously. The overthrow of the Iraqi government removed a counterbalance against Iranian influence in the region. I would argue that the costs haven't been worth it -- and all of these risks were knowable (to some extent anyway) before the invasion (and in fact, there were people predicting it!).
And we haven't even achieved a lot of the "value" you claim that we had the opportunity to create. Large chunks of the country are still controlled by a violent, repressive regime. The "rebuilding" has been slowed by massive corruption and graft. As of last year, most sections of Baghdad still didn't have electricity 24 hours a day. So it's not a black and white question as you always like to reduce everything to."
"Bullshit, John. Your interpretations of "liberal positions" ain't in the gray zone."
"This is not a comparable situation."
"You're still failing to understand that your characterizations of "liberal positions" are caricatures."
I reposted them to help me figure out how your comments relate to these stated positions....
1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
3. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
4. Strongly against deporting Illegal Workers
5. Strongly support granting border jumpers and visa over stayers a pardon and path to citizenship
6. Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
7. Strongly support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...
8. Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
9. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc)
10. Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful sefl governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
1. Sean noted that Canada and Germany brought in more Syrian refugees. Seems like an argument that the US should bring in more...
2. Sean noted "no problems so far" so we should not slow down refugee flow.
5. Sean noted that the Senate had a tentative deal on pardon / path. Seems like supporting pardon/path.
10. Sean noted that the there was some main stream Liberal support for attacking Afghanistan. (ie retaliation for 9/11?) Not sure what that means for our long term secure, support and train mission.
10. Sean noted Congress did not pass Syria military force authorization. Not sure how this applies to what Liberals support or do not support.
10. Sean noted the high costs incurred by trying to stabilize and develop Iraq. Seems like a case against doing it again.
Laurie / Hiram,
Do either of you take offense at my summarized Liberal Platform?
I am somewhat uncertain what Sean finds incorrect about it. After years of commenting with Liberals here and elsewhere, I think many of them would agree with it.
"I am most certain that the far Left would be happy to stop compromising and have it all their way..." They should be happy all the time, by that definition, since the SOP of Congress has Republicans doing all the "compromising." That wouldn't be bad if the Democrats had the right idea on any of these issues, but they did not. Consider the recent government shutdown, where repeated "compromises" by Republicans were outright rejected while Democrats made that shutdown politically painful rather than move an inch.
John, the problem here is that Democrats (aka The Left) rarely these days say what they are actually FOR. They spend most of their time criticizing (unfairly IMHO) what Republicans want to do. Reducing illegal immigration, for example, is "racist." When they do offer their own "vision" it is couched in positive terms like "We believe that all people should have the opportunity to be self-sufficient, secure and healthy. Cost-effective and adequately funded programs can help ensure these basic needs." Hard to disagree with, but the reality is nowhere near it and, when Republicans suggest, for example, adding work requirements to food stamps, it's "Oh, the horror" and "Republicans just want poor people to die." It does make compromise difficult, when liberal utopia is set against conservative reality.
The Democratic Party's Platform has a lot of statements of what they are for... Not sure if they are rational or good for America?
I disagree with your main point which seems to be that liberals are stupid. The way you characterize liberal views does not reflect my opinions on the issues. For instance I don't hate really helping and I do not favor weak borders.
We just came off 8 years in power. And we were followed by a vacuum, which now seems to be filling up with the same Obama era policies Trump the candidate campaigned against, policies which even President Obama's supporters had serious questions about. I mean really, the meaningless bombing of air bases is so Hillary.
A lesson the Republicans taught us that I hope we haven't entirely learned is that an opposition party doesn't have to be for stuff. But the downside of that particular brand of political cynicism is increasingly apparent now. Republicans simply have no clue about what to do about health care policy. What were they doing the last eight years? As I suggested, Trump's lack of political weight, seems to be drawing him back to Obama era foreign policy fecklessness.
It is interesting to me how politically inert Donald Trump is, and how contrary that must be to the expectations of those who wanted a businessman for president. For such a high energy candidate, he seems to have no energy at all as an elected official.
--Hiram
Laurie,
I don't think Liberals are stupid, I think they want to help people people by bringing them here, by raising taxes on the rich and with non-military intervention. I just think that won't work long term.
And please remember I did not say you are for weak borders. I said
3. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures
9. Strongly against a border wall and other increased security measures that would reduce drug smuggling from Central America even further. (ie pays for Cartels, gangs, etc)
And yes I agree that Liberals want to help, as I also stated above...
6. Strongly support giving illegal residents government benefits, sanctuary, drivers licenses, etc
7. Strongly support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate...
8. Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
11. Now I do understand that Liberals do support sending "tax payer" money as foreign aid, and applying political pressure in order to hopefully help the less fortunate... And I support this also...
But that you are against military interventions for the most part.
10. Strongly against US military and State Department efforts to remove violent dictators / criminals, stabilize countries and help those people develop a more peaceful sefl governing society. (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc) And no we can not save everyone, but if we are in there for multiple reasons...
Hiram, Nice deflection from the topic... :-)
"The Democratic Party's Platform has a lot of statements of what they are for."
Yes, and just like Republicans, the Platform means nearly nothing to actual governance. The statement I quoted was actually from the DFL platform, and like most platform statements (again from either party) they are consensus statements of desiderata. One might also say that these platform statements reflect similar "ends" for each party, and that they all want everybody healthy, happy, prosperous, well-educated, etc. When we get beyond the wishful thinking is when everything goes awry. Republican policies tend to want to deal with realities like human nature and the laws of economics, recognizing that free markets and free peoples tend to maximize messy but efficient results, while Democrats believe that humanity can be perfected-- utopia-- can be delivered by government fiat (or at least one piece at a time).
Said another way, Republicans think Democrats are wrong; Democrats think Republicans are stupid and evil.
"And I can understand why the Liberals love these policies. They can feel good by providing sanctuary to the unfortunate of the world while not having to pay the bill."-- Original Post
No, G2A, you're wrong. Liberals want to feel good and believe that there is no bill to be paid. To quote Capt. Jean Luc Picard, "Make it so."
In terms of deflection, this is the sentence I was responding to, "But if Syria did use banned weapons on their own people, then let's kick them until they stop..."
Kicking countries who do things we don't like is classic Hillary-ist foreign policy. It's the foreign policy Trump frequently although not consistently, rejected during the campaign, and the foreign policy he is now adopting now that he is president and thoroughly in thrall to the deep state.
We know the alternative, we just don't speak of it. We can invade Syria. It's not that we can't, it's just that we are not willing to for a variety of very good reasons. So in lieu of that, we drop some bombs, and satisfy the portion of the population that prefers illusion to reality.
--Hiram
"1. Sean noted that Canada and Germany brought in more Syrian refugees. Seems like an argument that the US should bring in more..."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of responding to what I actually said, you made up a new argument which I didn't make and argued against that.
Here are my relevant statements that you have said are incorrect.
1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
What was your point in bringing up Canada and Germany's refugee rate relative to the USA's rate if not to justify that we should take more from refugees from Syria based on their choices? (ie fully supporting my statements) The reality is that Canada likes immigrants since their population is pretty small and aging.
As for responding to your point, go to all the graphs and info I provided in the original post. The USA has accepted lots of immigrants and refugees from N Africa and the Middle East, and a lot more from Central America and Mexico... (ie our neighboring countries)
"2. Sean noted "no problems so far" so we should not slow down refugee flow."
Yep. It should be pointed out that the refugee flow is already *extremely slow*, a point which you continue to duck.
"5. Sean noted that the Senate had a tentative deal on pardon / path. Seems like supporting pardon/path."
The Senate did not have a "tentative deal". The Senate -- on a bipartisan basis, which is the critical point here -- actually passed a bill.
"10. Sean noted that the there was some main stream Liberal support for attacking Afghanistan. (ie retaliation for 9/11?) Not sure what that means for our long term secure, support and train mission."
How many Congressional Democrats voted against the use of military force in Afghanistan? One.
The liberal President who just held the office doubled the number of air strikes in Afghanistan in 2016 compared to 2015. Donald Trump, meanwhile, has a long history of repeatedly calling for American troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan.
"10. Sean noted Congress did not pass Syria military force authorization. Not sure how this applies to what Liberals support or do not support."
Who was asking for the authorization? If Republicans are so gung-ho about intervening in Syria, why didn't Speaker Boehner put it up for a vote?
"10. Sean noted the high costs incurred by trying to stabilize and develop Iraq. Seems like a case against doing it again."
Yes, I fully agree that we should not do something like Iraq again. That doesn't mean that military action is never warranted anywhere else. What is does mean is that we need to have a better grasp of how we define success in the mission and a firm understanding of what will be required to achieve it -- both of which were lacking in Iraq.
Again, this is your problem -- assuming that unwillingness to do one thing means unwillingness to do all things and assigning your misinterpretation to others.
"What was your point in bringing up Canada and Germany's refugee rate relative to the USA's rate if not to justify that we should take more from refugees from Syria based on their choices? "
The point is to show that even under a liberal Presidential administration, we are not flooding our country with Syrian refugees. Which flies contrary to your assertion that liberals just want to invite everybody in, consequences be damned.
Sean, I tend to agree with you that the situation is "nuanced" and I do not see that comparing one administration with another, or another country with the US, is very helpful. What is missing in all of these comparisons is what is (or should have been) the RIGHT thing to do, at the time the decision was made? Certainly in hindsight it seems like bringing any number of refugees from Syria was a poor choice, except for the Christians suffering absolute persecution. And a diplomatic and/or military approach to eliminating the refugee problem would be preferable to a) uprooting people from their ancestral home and culture and b) permitting ISIS to infiltrate terrorists onto our shores.
I think what John is objecting to is the /reaction/ too many Democrats have to Trump's reasonable precautions and steps in this area, such as punishing the chemical attacks, calling for strong vetting of a few countries, a short-term ban on Syrian refugees, and the notion that Russia could help us, if a "deal" could be struck. Whether those objections stem from the belief there is a better policy or from simply being "the [unreasoning] Resistance" in everything, it's hard to tell but seems to me to be the latter.
"Certainly in hindsight it seems like bringing any number of refugees from Syria was a poor choice"
I don't think that is self-evident at all.
2. 75,000 refugees and 900,000 immigrants per year is not exactly a trickle... See chart. For Liberals what is enough?
5. Apparently it was not bi-partisan enough to pass the house.
10. They approved attacking then... What did they want to do attack and run? (ie get revenge) I am missing something here.
10. I must have missed something, I did not hear either strongly asking for authorization to use force in Syria... And I did not say the GOP is excited about invading Syria. I have been saying that most Liberals are against using force to help people from other countries. Big difference there.
10. I'll be watching to see if the typical Liberals ever advocate invading and helping people from another country. I mean Obama did bomb Libya and get Gadafi deposed. Of course then they left an unsecured power vacuum in that country. Not sure that is being responsible.
And yes Trump did send in missiles and destroy 1/4th of Syria's air force. However that seemed a measured result to Assad's using chemical weapons.
He has not used US forces to topple a regime like Obama did in Libya.
The upside with Bush is that he understood the simple rules of proper behavior... "If you break it you bought it." Therefore he advocated stabilizing the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the USA disrupted them.
"2. 75,000 refugees and 900,000 immigrants per year is not exactly a trickle... "
According to the UN, in 2015 we accepted the 15th most refugees (in absolute terms). On a per-capita basis, that ranked 75th in the world. We are not exceptional when it comes to accepting refugees.
"They approved attacking then... What did they want to do attack and run? (ie get revenge) I am missing something here."
You missed a lot of things. Like the liberal who won two terms as President openly advocating (and then implementing) a "surge" in Afghanistan and a renewed (and succesful) effort to track down Osama bin Laden.
"I'll be watching to see if the typical Liberals ever advocate invading and helping people from another country. I mean Obama did bomb Libya and get Gadafi deposed. Of course then they left an unsecured power vacuum in that country. Not sure that is being responsible."
In 2013 on this blog, you said you were fine with letting the sides fight it out in Syria without intervening. Have you changed your position? I searched and I didn't see you advocating putting boots on the ground in Libya, either. Your positions on these issues sure are different now that there's a different President in charge.
And yes Trump did send in missiles and destroy 1/4th of Syria's air force. However that seemed a measured result to Assad's using chemical weapons.
I expect we will be destroying a fourth of Syria's air force a lot over the coming years. It's the sort of Zeno-esque policy that plays so well on the Sunday morning news shows. It's the policy politicians reject when running for office, and embrace once they win, for reasons that have never been clear to anyone.
--Hiram
2. Remember that I personally do not want the USA to be "exceptional when it comes to accepting refugees." I want the USA to be exceptional in helping people to fix their own countries. It seems you are reinforcing my points 1 & 2...
1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
Good Lord, you are dense.
The point is to show that even under a liberal Presidential administration, we are not flooding our country with refugees. Which flies contrary to your assertion that liberals just want to invite everybody in, consequences be damned.
How may more times to I need to repeat it?
10. I don't think I have advocated for invading Syria. I just said that it was good when the air force kicked Assad for violating international law and poisoning children. So I guess maybe the rules changed when Assad crossed a line.
10. I would have to go and look, but I don't think I advocated removing Gadafi either. It seems I was quite conflicted.
I'll have to do a little research about Obama's Afghanistan proposals and when he announced them.
Do statements 1 or 2 in anyway state " invite everybody in, consequences be damned."?
1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
By the way, you never answered... How many per year would be adequate? From where?
"Do statements 1 or 2 in anyway state " invite everybody in, consequences be damned."?"
No, but in the opening remarks on this post, you noted how you felt liberals would be OK repopulating 1/2 of the world's population to the U.S. and Europe. But, hey, you never exaggerate liberal positions!
"By the way, you never answered... How many per year would be adequate? From where?"
I was comfortable with the Obama Administration position on this issue. Where are your numbers?
"10. I don't think I have advocated for invading Syria. I just said that it was good when the air force kicked Assad for violating international law and poisoning children. So I guess maybe the rules changed when Assad crossed a line.
10. I would have to go and look, but I don't think I advocated removing Gadafi either. It seems I was quite conflicted. "
So are the Syrian and Libyan victims who as human beings should be given assistance, or are they not? Are they less deserving than that young woman who is trapped by her own addiction? It seems like you're saying the same thing I did -- that our intervention in these matters is not the same as intervention with a family member after all.
Sean, you're asking a Republican (despite his protestations to the contrary) to be consistent. You're just going to continue to be frustrated. It's not in their nature.
Anonymoose
1&2. I am fine with what either Obama or Trump were/are doing with regard to refugees.
I am not the one attacking either of them on this topic. It is Liberals who love attacking and name calling the GOP and Trump. I would prefer to have the US military and State department help the Iraqis and Afghani's improve their countries.
10. If you think the Obama's USA intervention broke Libya then we probably should still be assisting them.
10. Syria is a home cooked civil war. We have no obligation to assist beyond normal international law enforcement.
Anonymoose,
I almost always vote Republican, I do not think I have ever denied that.
What I have said is that I disagree with most of the religious right and Tea Party beliefs. Meaning that I am the far left / libertarian of the GOP.... Kind of like where Colin Peterson is.
Oops... He is a Democrat...
"1&2. I am fine with what either Obama or Trump were/are doing with regard to refugees."
And you wonder why I find you incoherent...
I am not incoherent... I just don't care if we bring in 40,000 or 160,000 refugees per year.
The world has 7+ and growing Billion people and many from all over it have real problems and/or want to come live in the USA. What we bring in is pretty insignificant compared to the size of the problem and what we the "World Police" do to help them at home. I am not sure why Liberals want to focus on taking more refugees from the countries where we know terrorists do reside.
Please remember my statements:
1. Strongly support bringing in more refugees from Syria, Central America and other war zones
2. Strongly against slowing the inflow of refugees from terrorist laden conflict zones
So how do reconcile these and...
8. Strongly support more tax payer funded programs and higher minimum wages. Both of which cost American citizens more money. (ie higher taxes, higher prices and/or both)
When our American working and poor classes are apparently struggling as is?
Now I agree that is generous to accept refugees if one is paying the bills themselves. But the Liberal desire to welcome many of the world's poor here to compete for jobs with our own poor... And expecting other citizens to pay more taxes and bills to support the Liberal's "caring action" seems funny strange.
That is why it seems much more coherent to me to help our struggling citizens by deporting illegal "low end" workers, constraining how many of these workers we bring in and instead helping them in their home country.
That is likely why I find the Liberal mantra of "the USA low level jobs don't pay enough" while they spend their money elsewhere, they provide sanctuary to illegal workers, they demand we let more needy in, etc seems very incoherent to me.
Post a Comment