Consequences for US decisions on letting people into the USA

[Unkotare]

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

To be honest, I'm not interested in playing you silly game. Either you debate with me, or you don't and you can **** off. It's that simple even you should be able to understand.

I said I would. I just requested to pick one instead of the shotgun fallacy you posted.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I also understand what 6 year old children are saying.

Do you understand me? I'm not playing you [sic] childish games. When you decide to grow the **** up, come back and debate, until then, **** off. Got it?

You officially fail, you anti-American SOB.

 

[Flopper]

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

 

[Correll]

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

Really? You are slamming America for "supporting" Stalin? When the Nazis were pounding on the Gates of Moscow?


YOu are nothing but a troll.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

Really? You are slamming America for "supporting" Stalin? When the Nazis were pounding on the Gates of Moscow?


YOu are nothing but a troll.

You don't seem to be able to read. I guess I'm going to put you on ignore. You're nothing but a pain in the ass.

 

[Correll]

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

Really? You are slamming America for "supporting" Stalin? When the Nazis were pounding on the Gates of Moscow?


YOu are nothing but a troll.

You don't seem to be able to read. I guess I'm going to put you on ignore. You're nothing but a pain in the ass.

I read just fine. It is bullshit that the US "supported" Stalin.

Only a sophist troll would make such a claim.

 

[Flopper]

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

Really? You are slamming America for "supporting" Stalin? When the Nazis were pounding on the Gates of Moscow?


YOu are nothing but a troll.

You don't seem to be able to read. I guess I'm going to put you on ignore. You're nothing but a pain in the ass.

I read just fine. It is bullshit that the US "supported" Stalin.

Only a sophist troll would make such a claim.

US supported Stalin when it was in our best interest to do so, WWII. By end of the war it became clear that US and Russia under Stalin would not be allies in the future.

There are many ways to oppose a totalitarian government other than war and given enough time they do work.

For example, the US opposition to the USSR resulted in the cold war, a far better outcome than a hot war which would have devastated the planet and left tens if not hundreds of millions dead. It took 45 years but in 1991, the USSR ceases to exist.

 

[Correll]

Ok, Saddam was a real scumbag. So what? The world is full of them. Assad in Syria has effectually destroyed the nation and has committed every war crime in the book and Russia is restoring him to power.

Hopefully the US has learned from the Iraqi disaster that killing half million people at a cost of 2 trillion dollars is not the best way to deal with a brutal dictator.

And the US has managed to support half of the world's scumbags, lie Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mugabe, Stalin, etc.

Really? You are slamming America for "supporting" Stalin? When the Nazis were pounding on the Gates of Moscow?


YOu are nothing but a troll.

You don't seem to be able to read. I guess I'm going to put you on ignore. You're nothing but a pain in the ass.

I read just fine. It is bullshit that the US "supported" Stalin.

Only a sophist troll would make such a claim.

US supported Stalin when it was in our best interest to do so, WWII. By end of the war it became clear that US and Russia under Stalin would not be allies in the future.

There are many ways to oppose a totalitarian government other than war and given enough time they do work.

For example, the US opposition to the USSR resulted in the cold war, a far better outcome than a hot war which would have devastated the planet and left tens if not hundreds of millions dead. It took 45 years but in 1991, the USSR ceases to exist.

Only an asshole would attack the US for "supporting Stalin" without at least noting the context of the war against the NAZIS.


Do you not agree?