Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ...
8
48
56
57
58
  1. #1141
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    Oh and before anyone brings up troop pullout of Iraq, Obama's hands were tied by Bush on that one.
    You obviously don't understand how diplomacy works. You give them something and they give you something. We are propping up the Iraqi government with both cash and manpower. If we stopped doing that, their government would fall in a matter of months or weeks. They said our troops should leave and we said, 'OK here's more money'. That's terrible diplomacy. We could have easily said 'OK and the checkbook is leaving too'. They would have begged us to stay. That's sounds like us taking advantage of them, but they're getting plenty of assistance in return. Assistance that they do in fact want and need.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    No troops fighting. Only "advisors" and drones.
    The War Powers Act states that the President has authority to use force for up to 60 days without approval. Use of force. That includes drones by any standard I can possibly imagine. Nowhere in it does it say that this only applies to ground forces. Drones are a use of force. Drones kill. Those advisors are there in a military capacity to aid in a hostile action against an enemy force. True, they aren't riding around, shooting at the enemy, but they are assisting in locating targets and calling in US assets for air strikes. How anyone can see that as anything less than a hostile action boggles my mind.

    Using your reasoning, the President can lob missiles into any country any time he wants to and Congress has no say in the matter because there's no troops on the ground.
    Signature removed. Please read our guidelines. Venara

  2. #1142
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by AssaultDrone View Post
    This is such an outright lie. Yes, we're talking about women, children, and old people...AND MEN. You seem to have left that off...almost as if it was intentional. You also seem to be a bit sexist in you're implication that women can't be terrorists. There were women involved in the Paris attack.
    2% of refugees we've admitted so far have been men of "military age," which is generally defined as age 17 to 32. Over 50% are children. 25% are men and women over age 60. That leaves 23% as mothers and fathers (over the age of 32) coming in with a family unit. We've only admitted a little over 2,000 refugees from Syria, so you're talking about 40 guys of "military age."

    And you can't be serious with "Why are you afraid of children?". For one thing, you're intentionally misrepresenting what was stated. And secondly, children can be legitimately scary. Go to Africa and ask them "Why are you afraid of children?" A lot of people will respond with something along the line of..."child soldiers killed my whole family". The world is not as simple and friendly as you seem to think it is.
    That must be why 5 year old orphans are a threat to the security of the United States. And it's like you have done about 0 research on what exactly child soldiers are and how they are created.

    Look, if you want to live your life afraid of babies, you go right ahead. I'm going to busy myself with helping them. Because they're babies, and they don't hate anyone.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  3. #1143
    Here is a bit of a reality check for folks that seem to lack the factual information to even have this discussion.



    Clearly peanuts are more of a threat to the general public than refugees

  4. #1144
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Sury View Post
    Here is a bit of a reality check for folks that seem to lack the factual information to even have this discussion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2HkQcgXcXU

    Clearly peanuts are more of a threat to the general public than refugees
    All hail John Oliver, harbinger of humorously delivered facts! He's like the English Mythbuster.
    Last edited by RaoBurning; 2015-11-24 at 02:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  5. #1145
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    2% of refugees we've admitted so far have been men of "military age," which is generally defined as age 17 to 32. Over 50% are children. 25% are men and women over age 60. That leaves 23% as mothers and fathers (over the age of 32) coming in with a family unit. We've only admitted a little over 2,000 refugees from Syria, so you're talking about 40 guys of "military age."

    And it's like you have done about 0 research on what exactly child soldiers are and how they are created.
    OK...well this was never about the 2000 refugees that came in over the last however many years. It's about the upcoming 65000 of which far more than before will be "military age men" as you put it. I make that claim because that is what the FBI says. If this was all babies as you want to make it seem, I'd have no issue with it at all. I'd be in total agreement with you. But it's not about babies.

    And I know exactly what child soldiers are. What makes you think I don't?
    Signature removed. Please read our guidelines. Venara

  6. #1146
    Quote Originally Posted by AssaultDrone View Post
    OK...well this was never about the 2000 refugees that came in over the last however many years. It's about the upcoming 65000 of which far more than before will be "military age men" as you put it. I make that claim because that is what the FBI says. If this was all babies as you want to make it seem, I'd have no issue with it at all. I'd be in total agreement with you. But it's not about babies.

    And I know exactly what child soldiers are. What makes you think I don't?
    I missed the part where we elected Hillary Clinton already.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  7. #1147
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    I missed the part where we elected Hillary Clinton already.
    That's an absolutely fair point. Obama has not used the 65000 number to the best of my knowledge...just 10000. Fair enough.

    But...this entire argument isn't about what IS, but what MIGHT BE. Like it or not (and I don't), the next president probably will be HRC. Unless something groundbreaking happens, she'll get the Democratic nomination at which point there's a 50/50 chance she'll be president. Though again, in fairness, this whole situation might be over before she takes office. But I doubt it.
    Signature removed. Please read our guidelines. Venara

  8. #1148
    Quote Originally Posted by AssaultDrone View Post
    But...this entire argument isn't about what IS
    What IS, is the most stringent refugee vetting process imaginable including requiring the acting Director of the FBI to personally sign off on each approved applicant. Is there an extremely low chance a terrorist would put themselves through a 18-24 month process that in no way guarantees what country they will even be randomly selected for? Yes. Why would they choose to play that lottery? They could, with much less effort, target their desired entry point by use a temporary visa which we issue to millions of people every year.

    You are fighting the wrong fight. Stand for closing visa loopholes if you want to make our country safer. We are more likely to die to a terrorist that crossed our border with a temporary visa. We are exceedingly more likely to die to a born and bread American citizen than a Syrian refugee. Unfounded paranoia benefits no one.

    It does not matter if the number is 10k, 65k, or 6.5m. If a refugee can not pass the process they do not receive asylum. Unless Congress decides to loosen the stringency of said process this conversation is moot. Considering they made the process even more stringent last week that scenario seems extremely unlikely.

  9. #1149
    Quote Originally Posted by Sury View Post
    What IS, is the most stringent refugee vetting process imaginable including requiring the acting Director of the FBI to personally sign off on each approved applicant. Is there an extremely low chance a terrorist would put themselves through a 18-24 month process that in no way guarantees what country they will even be randomly selected for? Yes. Why would they choose to play that lottery? They could, with much less effort, target their desired entry point by use a temporary visa which we issue to millions of people every year.

    You are fighting the wrong fight. Stand for closing visa loopholes if you want to make our country safer. We are more likely to die to a terrorist that crossed our border with a temporary visa. We are exceedingly more likely to die to a born and bread American citizen than a Syrian refugee. Unfounded paranoia benefits no one.

    It does not matter if the number is 10k, 65k, or 6.5m. If a refugee can not pass the process they do not receive asylum. Unless Congress decides to loosen the stringency of said process this conversation is moot. Considering they made the process even more stringent last week that scenario seems extremely unlikely.
    I would assume ISIS is trying any and all methods to gain access to US targets. I don't know why you would assume they wouldn't try this method, IN ADDITION to other methods. They have more than one terrorist at their disposal.

    I pointed out way back in the post where the fear of all this starts. It's because of the Cuban Mariel boat lift refugee program that Castro used to empty his prisons, hospitals, and mental institutions in to the US. These guys watched Scarface and they fear it will happen again.

  10. #1150
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    I would assume ISIS is trying any and all methods to gain access to US targets. I don't know why you would assume they wouldn't try this method, IN ADDITION to other methods. They have more than one terrorist at their disposal.

    I pointed out way back in the post where the fear of all this starts. It's because of the Cuban Mariel boat lift refugee program that Castro used to empty his prisons, hospitals, and mental institutions in to the US. These guys watched Scarface and they fear it will happen again.
    There is no doubt they will try multiple methods of entry. What I also have no doubt about is they will come to the same conclusions anyone else would. Path of least resistance

    -edit

    Last edited by Sury; 2015-11-24 at 11:45 PM.

  11. #1151
    Quote Originally Posted by Sury View Post
    What IS, is the most stringent refugee vetting process imaginable including requiring the acting Director of the FBI to personally sign off on each approved applicant. Is there an extremely low chance a terrorist would put themselves through a 18-24 month process that in no way guarantees what country they will even be randomly selected for? Yes. Why would they choose to play that lottery? They could, with much less effort, target their desired entry point by use a temporary visa which we issue to millions of people every year.

    You are fighting the wrong fight. Stand for closing visa loopholes if you want to make our country safer. We are more likely to die to a terrorist that crossed our border with a temporary visa. We are exceedingly more likely to die to a born and bread American citizen than a Syrian refugee. Unfounded paranoia benefits no one.

    It does not matter if the number is 10k, 65k, or 6.5m. If a refugee can not pass the process they do not receive asylum. Unless Congress decides to loosen the stringency of said process this conversation is moot. Considering they made the process even more stringent last week that scenario seems extremely unlikely.
    See, here's what you seem to be missing. I've never actually said I have a problem with the official vetting process. I would actually agree with you that it's a fairly good one. And I'd agree that it's unlikely that a terrorist would play the waiting game for 2 years. I've never argued against that in any way. I have had 2 issues and neither is the vetting process as you have described it. My first issue is that the FBI director has stated that we don't have (nor are we likely to be able to attain) the necessary information to vet these people properly. My second issue is that this administration has a habit of changing/ignoring the rules when they don't like them. With their track record, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Obama decides he wants to make sure these people get in before the elections and once again waves his wand and ignores the rules.
    Signature removed. Please read our guidelines. Venara

  12. #1152
    Quote Originally Posted by AssaultDrone View Post
    See, here's what you seem to be missing. I've never actually said I have a problem with the official vetting process. I would actually agree with you that it's a fairly good one. And I'd agree that it's unlikely that a terrorist would play the waiting game for 2 years. I've never argued against that in any way. I have had 2 issues and neither is the vetting process as you have described it. My first issue is that the FBI director has stated that we don't have (nor are we likely to be able to attain) the necessary information to vet these people properly. My second issue is that this administration has a habit of changing/ignoring the rules when they don't like them. With their track record, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Obama decides he wants to make sure these people get in before the elections and once again waves his wand and ignores the rules.
    Miss those two? I expected you to have that justifiable stance. Now that we are discussing the real debate of this issue, I personally do not believe Obama will take executive action to push through the 10,000 refugees he wants to give asylum. I feel like this is an extremely complex situation and too hotly debated with very justifiable doubt in the minds of any ration person discussing it. Skipping the entire process by a stroke of pen would be shockingly reckless. If I am wrong then I share your concern of how irresponsible this current administration has become.

    As for lack of information, the FBI has been very open about their lack of means to vet the Syrian refugees. Since the program is stringent we are left not knowing how or even when we will see anything take place. Right now this issue has boiled down to nothing short of a political tool. This is yet another nonissue candidates will use to garner more support while ignoring the issues they actually have control over invoking change. Until we hear a report about thousands of Syrian refugees boarding plains without passing through the proper channel in place, I will go on trusting the system and disregard the conjecture.

  13. #1153

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •