Which means Prince Charles should be front and center with a big mega phone screaming in trumps ear just to piss him off

Prince Charles should keep his mouth shut.

(January 30, 2017 at 1:51 am)Regina Wrote:

Hmmm...

(Not saying people from those 4 other countries should be banned, just interesting)

Interesting. From that graphic we can prove that Trump only does business with people who hate America.

(January 30, 2017 at 1:51 am)Regina Wrote:

Hmmm...

(Not saying people from those 4 other countries should be banned, just interesting)

I'm not putting any opinions forward here because I admit I know little about American politics.  So I am genuinely asking this as a question not a rhetorical question.

But isn't this what America has always done?

Hasn't every single president or wannabe president (Hilary Clinton) either spoke about or directly ordered the bombing or military intervention against places like Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and so on.  While at the same time ignoring Turkey the Saudis and Egypt.

Obviously there's other countries with higher populations of Muslims too, Pakistan, Indonesia.

(January 30, 2017 at 9:09 am)paulpablo Wrote: I'm not putting any opinions forward here because I admit I know little about American politics.  So I am genuinely asking this as a question not a rhetorical question.

But isn't this what America has always done?

Hasn't every single president or wannabe president (Hilary Clinton) either spoke about or directly ordered the bombing or military intervention against places like Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and so on.  While at the same time ignoring Turkey the Saudis and Egypt.

Obviously there's other countries with higher populations of Muslims too, Pakistan, Indonesia.

Yeah you are right. There is a history of them going after the little countries or easy targets to "spread democracy" while ignoring the more powerful states. I think they just know where their interests lie, financially speaking.

I was a child at the time so I'm not entirely sure what the exact full story behind Bush declaring war on Iraq, but that seemed like a completely random "just because" response to 9/11 too.

The little guys qualify as "failed states" much more readily, making it that much easier to insert ourselves into their affairs.   Consider, also, that financial interests extend in both directions, and from a practical standpoint that gives other countries leverage with which to negotiate in the case of a powerful central government that does shit we don't like.  Juxtaposing these two things, we also try to apply leverage on more powerful states by our actions in less powerful neighbor states.  


So we pressure country a to do x...whilst installing client governments on it's borders. This isn't to say that our financial interests are ignored (they can't be, honestly), only to point out that influence creates those financial interests in the first place. OFC, that;s not all that they create. Say whatever you like about the US, it;s not like we haven't gotten into some dirt....but all of our "spreading democracy", in all of the ways that we do it and for all of the reasons that we do it, has been a net gain for the globe. Our run at being the last man standing in the superpower game may be over, but it was a good run.

(January 30, 2017 at 2:04 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Tiberius,

Thanks for the update.  There is a provision in the EO, Section 5(e), that allows entry for people who were already in transit and denying them admission would cause undue hardship.  That gave the Judge an out for ruling the way she did.

The problem is that Trump's writers wrote the thing like the Second Amendment (in mud) without specifying all of the fine points.  And he was in such a hurry that he didn't have the people charged with carrying it out proofread it and correct the flaws.  

If Trump doesn't have some honest critics to review his actions his yes men & women will get his ass burned off.  It's like the dummy who misspelled the British PM's name twice on official correspondence.  Details matter.

The problem I have is that it should have been explicit from the start with regards to lawful permanent residents. Even with the provision you noted, the Trump administration has flip flopped multiple times on whether the EO applied to green card holders. For instance, during the chaos at airports with legal US residents being denied entry to their home, Trump himself said the EO was "working out very nicely". The DHS originally said on Friday that it wouldn't affect permanent residents, but the white house overruled them and said that it would, and green card holders would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Then, finally, on Sunday the Secretary of the DHS declared that the order wouldn't apply to green card holders.

By the way, I don't buy the excuse that Trump didn't have the people to proofread the EO. The LA Times managed to get a draft of the order several days before it was signed: http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-...-refugees/

That means it was being worked on for days, weeks maybe before Trump came into power.

Hey Wyrd, look at this pathetic snowflake!

http://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/vi...4561033052

(January 30, 2017 at 9:09 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(January 30, 2017 at 1:51 am)Regina Wrote:

Hmmm...

(Not saying people from those 4 other countries should be banned, just interesting)

I'm not putting any opinions forward here because I admit I know little about American politics.  So I am genuinely asking this as a question not a rhetorical question.

But isn't this what America has always done?

Hasn't every single president or wannabe president (Hilary Clinton) either spoke about or directly ordered the bombing or military intervention against places like Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and so on.  While at the same time ignoring Turkey the Saudis and Egypt.

Obviously there's other countries with higher populations of Muslims too, Pakistan, Indonesia.

I don't think anyone's has said differently

But I don't think that's a justification really

Let's say there is a hypocrisy for scenario's sake in the current outrage. Does that make trumps administration anymore in the right.

(January 30, 2017 at 11:29 am)Regina Wrote: I was a child at the time so I'm not entirely sure what the exact full story behind Bush declaring war on Iraq, but that seemed like a completely random "just because" response to 9/11 too.

I was already in my late 30ies. And yes, it was completely random - or more to the point - seemingly so. My guess is, Shrub wanted to get one over dad. Dad didn't march for Bagdad, so sonny had to do it. Also it doesn't take a genius to know that Cheney had business interests there. Shoving contracts to Haliburton. Among others, rotten food (I'm not kidding) to American soldiers.

And it's not the small countries being exempt from state building. It's the one bribing the most or shoving business contracts the politicians way. On the other hand it's often the corporations being behind nation building. Such as United Fruit more or less starting the Spanish American war in the late 19th century. Or oil companies being responsible for installing the Shah instead of the rightfully elected PM. Or getting rid of Allende on the other 9/11. 30 years before the only 9/11 that matters to Americans.