World, Writing, Wealth discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
World & Current Events
>
Ban Americans From Travelling To Rest Of World Due To Securty Risk
date
newest »
newest »
Sarcastic, I know, but usually these things are indeed reciprocal, so 7 countries might suspend entrance of US citizens for a while...Maybe too drastic and abrupt a measure, however Trump shows he's serious on his promises so far.
Don't think it's entirely baseless though and if he wants to implement some measures verifying who's who, temporary suspension may be reasonable..
It's not foreign citizens he needs to care about, but the safety of his own..
After all, State Department and probably Foreign Office, issued travel warnings for their own citizens not to travel there too...
You can't fight ignorant xenophobia with ignorant xenophobia. It's a race to the bottom and everyone loses.
You mean that we are not already on the bottom? Wait! This is only the first effective week of Trump's government. I think that I see the bottom ripping open and uncovering a new, deeper bottom. We were only on the top layer of the Nine Hells!
My personal prediction: Trump's presidency will implode before it completes its first four-year term (if he manages to get reelected for a second term, then the American people will truly deserve what will come next).
My personal prediction: Trump's presidency will implode before it completes its first four-year term (if he manages to get reelected for a second term, then the American people will truly deserve what will come next).
Michel wrote: "You mean that we are not already on the bottom? Wait! This is only the first effective week of Trump's government. I think that I see the bottom ripping open and uncovering a new, deeper bottom. We..."We will deserve what comes next? Do you really think the millions of people who did not vote Trump actually deserve this? Unfair, harsh and unproductive way to assess the situation, in my opinion. That's like saying the Iraqi people deserved to be bombed and invaded because Hussein was their elected leader. And trust ne, more than Americans will suffer if this catastrophe continues to unfold.
Tara, don't take it personal. What I meant is that, if the American people doesn't wake up, go to the polls en masse to throw Trump out, then they will have only themselves to blame. Vote! Don't stay home and find excuses not to make your voice count! And, while millions did not vote for Trump, the sad truth is that nearly as many millions DID vote for him. As for the rest of the World suffering because of him, I and others are way too conscious of that: that is why basically most of the rest of the World was shouting 'DON'T VOTE FOR THAT CLOWN!' But half of the American voters did anyway. Now, there will be consequences for this, for everyone.
Michel wrote: "Tara, don't take it personal. What I meant is that, if the American people doesn't wake up, go to the polls en masse to throw Trump out, then they will have only themselves to blame. Vote! Don't st..."You're incorrect. 27% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump. Americans includes millions upon millions of people who had nothing to do with him being elected.
Michel wrote: "Tara, don't take it personal. What I meant is that, if the American people doesn't wake up, go to the polls en masse to throw Trump out, then they will have only themselves to blame. Vote! Don't st..."d/i>Even if all the Americans would have voted, it probably wouldn't have changed a lot. Studies have often shown that globally speaking non voters fall within the same percentage as voters do in terms of preferences. The difference however has been noticed between white and non-white voters.
The one point that is undisputable is that the World doesn't own Trump: Americans do! Now, only Americans can make sure that Trump stays as little time as possible in power. If only 27% of American eligible voters didn't cast their ballots for Trump, as Tara said, then those who didn't take the time to vote have only themselves to blame for helping Trump getting into power.
Michel wrote: "The one point that is undisputable is that the World doesn't own Trump: Americans do! Now, only Americans can make sure that Trump stays as little time as possible in power. If only 27% of American..."True, But I've also heard of vote rigging.
Michel wrote: "The one point that is undisputable is that the World doesn't own Trump: Americans do! Now, only Americans can make sure that Trump stays as little time as possible in power. If only 27% of American..."It is still wrong to blame an entire country for something that much of the population has no control over. Do you realize Trump fell 3 million votes short of the popular vote? Did you not know that the protests, rallies and popular anti-Trump sentiment have broken records. This election has divided people, ended friendships and damaged communities. Yet you're comfortable saying we deserve what we get because this monster is in power. As for non-voters, yes, I am angry with them but I can also understand their disenfranchisement, political alienation and sense of hopelessness with the system. And even they don't deserve a Trump regime.
Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Michel wrote: "The one point that is undisputable is that the World doesn't own Trump: Americans do! Now, only Americans can make sure that Trump stays as little time as possible in power. If only ..."A lot of them are misguided too I think.
Philip wrote: "Just an idea given:1. Large amount of crime exported from USA
2. Gun exports cause terrorism
3. On terrorism grounds US Americans are clearly a terrorism risk,
Therefore we need to protect the rest of the world until we sort out who and who not is a good American. A ninety day ban should suffice and given the imminent nature of the risk we need to impose this immediately and stop and cease all movement.
(I apologise to all my American friends but you elected him) "
Would you also support a complete pullout of NATO by US ?
Michael wrote: "Philip wrote: "Just an idea given:1. Large amount of crime exported from USA
2. Gun exports cause terrorism
3. On terrorism grounds US Americans are clearly a terrorism risk,
Therefore we need to..."
No I would not want US to stop NATO although Trump has threatened that and my first comment was made in jest as Nik remarked
I do not want the USA disengaged at all. I also respect the right of the US Voter's to elect whom they wish. I criticised Obama when he intervened in the UK's Brexit referendum.
I would like to know what the Republican controlled US Congress and Senate are doing apart from letting Trump do what he wants. They passed a law on torture (under Obama) for example but have now said nothing. The Republican leader 6 months agao said any ban was stupid, now he has supported it.
Tara - I know many many Americans did not vote for this but they did also vote for congress, senate and governors. To be fair to the new President, for a change for a politician, he is doing exactly what he said he would do.
I don't think the US would pull out of NATO. They would have to renegociate all their entrances to Eastern Europe country ports and navigation rights inside coastal off shore borders. It would turn into an automatic self-blockade.
Philip wrote: "Michael wrote: "Philip wrote: "Just an idea given:1. Large amount of crime exported from USA
2. Gun exports cause terrorism
3. On terrorism grounds US Americans are clearly a terrorism risk,
Ther..."
Don't see what Senatorial, gubernatorial or congressional elections have to do with the fact that Michel's statement generalized all Americans and insinuated that we deserve to be singled out for devastating outcomes.
Well said, Denise, and I can understand where your feelings come from.It's just the role of the leader has its toll and US as a superpower gets a lot of attention. Who remembers that Australia and Poland invaded Iraq too? Right, nobody -:)
I think it's still American-friendly ambiance here and it's the criticism of friends not of enemies. And there is praise too (not so often, but understandable, because praise isn't as interesting) -:)
I believe everything's open for discussion and criticism and I hope we offer sufficient criticism towards other countries, when they deserve it and maybe even when they don't.
Many are worried by Trump as a president. Don't think I like the man so much, but I wouldn't claim anything he does is always without merit ....
Nik wrote: "Well said, Denise, and I can understand where your feelings come from.It's just the role of the leader has its toll and US as a superpower gets a lot of attention. Who remembers that Australia and..."
America doesn't deserve false praise any more than it deserves inflated criticism. I want to discuss opinions derived from facts and equinimity when it comes to geopolitical conversations.
Nik wrote: "Well said, Denise, and I can understand where your feelings come from.It's just the role of the leader has its toll and US as a superpower gets a lot of attention. Who remembers that Australia and..."
I think there's a fine line between merit and justification.
Denise wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "We will deserve what comes next? Do you really think the millions of people who did not vote Trump actually deserve this? "Voting
There were millions who didn't vote f..."
Completely agree. If we don't intervene we're accused the world over of being just as guilty as those slaughtering women and children in Aleppo. If we do intervene Russia accuses us of terrorism and Hezbollah declares the streets will run red with the blood of Americans. Instead of finding workable solutions to these global crises most of the world is grabbing the popcorn and waiting for the US to star in a wild west showdown. gmafb.
Denise wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Instead of finding workable solutions to these global crises most of the world is grabbing the popcorn and waiting for the US to star in a wild west showdown."OMG, I lov..."
Lol and a thumbs up for the link!
There is an old saying that in a democracy, people tend to get the kind of government they deserve. I would say that's mitigated just a little by the fact that we don't have a direct democracy and he really did lose the popular vote by 2.9 million, but in general I find the idea congenial. Maybe it's the masochist in me, but we collectively have allowed for a culture in which a monster like Trump can flourish. Nik wrote: "Well said, Denise, and I can understand where your feelings come from.
It's just the role of the leader has its toll and US as a superpower gets a lot of attention. Who remembers that Australia and..."
I don't think other governments, though, will be able to think of the US as friendly in the coming years. If people like Bannon and Flynn gets their way, our government is going to be doing everything it can to support populist and neo-fascist movements everywhere. Other countries are going to have to be extremely wary of us, and start to regard us as basically another Russia.
The American travel ban is probably unnecessary, however. I have the feeling that most Trump voters don't travel. They like it just fine here- in "the greatest country in the world." Besides, it's hard to watch sunday football when abroad, if only because of the time difference.
Mike wrote: "There is an old saying that in a democracy, people tend to get the kind of government they deserve. I would say that's mitigated just a little by the fact that we don't have a direct democracy and ..."Sunday football :O
Mike wrote: "Other countries are going to have to be extremely wary of us, and start to regard us as basically another Russia. ..."So far, looks like the style is undergoing a considerable change: no more convincing and wooing, more - you do this or else....
Indeed reminds me a little Russian-style shutting off gas and letting Ukraine and Europe freeze in 2008-2009...
I have a question though, why were those countries picked for the ban? I just watched a video on CNN giving figures from a conservative think tank, showing that in the past 45 years, the number of US citizens killed by citizens from any of the now banned 7 countries, is a total of 0, while Egypt, whose citizens are still allowed to travel, the number is 162, Saudi Arabia, 2369, and the UAE, 314 (I can't figure out how to get a link for the video to share it.)
Additional numbers they had: Including 9/11, the chance of a US citizen being killed by an act of terrorism on US soil, is 1.364 million per year. The chance of being killed by a refugee is 1.364 billion per year (over the same 45 year period).
Incidentally, Trump has financial dealings with and property holdings in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Or is that just a coincidence?
I just really don't understand the reasoning behind the specific choices of countries caught up in this current situation.
As for the rest of the world sitting around waiting for the US to bail us out, I think that's probably a generalisation that isn't very helpful. But I think it's pretty hard to understand what the entire populace of another country is thinking. I mean, I don't understand what the US was thinking in November, either.
As a final aside, please note those are asylum seekers in those numbers listed, not refugees. It takes months, if not years, to get to the point of seeking asylum, and that is a final ditch step, meaning they accept they are never going to get to go home, and it's also a step taken at the final destination. The people still being shuffled around between camps are a very long way from seeking asylum anywhere. So the US is relatively overrepresented there (by the time people have gotten to the US, which tends to take many steps, they're pretty sure they're not going to ever get to go home, so they may as well apply for asylum.)
Syrian refugees are not likely to be seeking asylum in Iraq, or Jordan, or Lebanon. The refugee numbers are MUCH much higher. There are currently 2 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon (of which 1.6m are in Jordan and Lebanon), 2.8 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 29,000 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa. And this is only the people still in the camps.
Lebanon only has a population of 4 million, and has taken close to a million refugees - it CANNOT sustain that, and certainly can't grant asylum to all of them, it's crumbling under the load already. Sweden is listed there as having 150k asylum seekers, because it's also an end point (you can't get a whole lot further in Europe from Syria). Almost everyone who gets this far, is probably going to stay, if they can't go home.
I was in Stockholm volunteering at the train station in the summer of 2015 when the trains were coming in, around 10 thousand people a week. Sweden--remember this is a country the size of California, and with a population of 10 million--took in close to 190k people that year, and almost 50k of them were unaccompanied children who won't need to file for asylum until they are 18, reducing the numbers.
The US that year took in 69933 (and granted asylum to 25k). (Most of those were not Syrian, the "target" for 2016 was to increase the intake from Syria to 10000.)
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/...
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/articl...
Representatives of the Trump administration have already met with Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right Austrian Freedom Party...Trump is a vessel in my opinion, without any morals except the pursuit of money or power- and he has a talent for demagoguery. Bannon, on the other hand, is an ideologue, he means to export his ideology, and now he's on our national security council. The entire world is going to have to watch its back a lot more closely because of the decision 62 million Americans made.
Denise wrote: Instead of thinking of us as stupid in the past, right?Actually, the clarification that came to mind after I posted isn't yours at all- in fact, that sense of grievance never would have entered my mind. It's that many governments over the past 50 years, quite rightly, have thought of us as mendacious.
Nuff said. One of the many unreliable networks.
Nuff said. Very empirical approach you have there. Why don't you check the data yourself?
Its not just Trump that does a significant amount of business with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE, many American companies have significant interests in those countries. The value of American dollar and by default the EU is based on the relationship of the US and Saudi Arabia and their oil reserves. Research the "petro-dollar." Its for the same reason Obama vetoed a bill that would have allowed US citizens to sue the government of Saudi Arabia in US courts for deaths of 9/11. Its the same reason that the Bush family allowed members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of the US when all other flights were grounded.
Money talks.
Of the 7 countries in the ban, America's interest is relatively non-existent.
As for Egypt, we need another ally in that area other than Israel. And 10% of all global shipping goes through the Suez Canal. We cannot cut off that relationship.
Denise wrote: "Mike wrote: "I don't think other governments, though, will be able to think of the US as friendly in the coming years."Instead of thinking of us as stupid in the past, right?
Krazykiwi wrote: "..."
Really. You're just going to dismiss the entire rest of my post based on a dislike for CNN?
Those numbers were from the Cato institute, who are plenty conservative. CNN was just reporting them.
You asked where the Gulf states were re refugee numbers, those numbers I gave you are from the UNHCR.
Krazykiwi wrote: "Or is that just a coincidence?"I really doubt it.
Krazykiwi wrote: "I have a question though, why were those countries picked for the ban? .."For me it's pretty clear - I can try to explain. And it's not a ban as far as I understand, but - a suspension. These are countries with ongoing conflicts or hostile regimes, which require independent effort to understand who of their citizen may pose threat.
Saudi and Egypt are friendly to US, controllable by their authorities countries. I believe when in doubt - US can receive credible verification about any of their subjects in a matter of minutes or so...
The chances in lottery are somewhere in the same ballpark, yet so many play it -:)
Re: refugees I'm also of the opinion that the best solution would've been creating safe havens inside Syria, what is being discussed now. We had this debate long before Trump. The humanitarian situ in Syria in my opinion is the result of under-intervention. Without decisive power, the war was waged for long years with thousands in losses, millions in refugees, dozens of militias....
Nik wrote: "Krazykiwi wrote: "I have a question though, why were those countries picked for the ban? .."For me it's pretty clear - I can try to explain. And it's not a ban as far as I understand, but - a sus..."
Ok, but, no US citizens in the US have been killed in the past 45 years by any citizens of the affected countries, whereas nearly 4000 have been killed by citizens of the UAE, SA, and Egypt. So apparently being able to ask for confirmation from those countries either hasn't been used at all, or doesn't work anyway.
It's still wildly illogical to me.
Krazykiwi wrote: "It's still wildly illogical to me."Read above, its not about the lives of Americans, its about money. Everything that America does have a financial underpinning to it.
Its strange to me how people just swallow this media idea that America is concerned with human life and cares about refugees. Its almost laughable at this point.
Krazykiwi wrote: "Ok, but, no US citizens in the US have been killed in the past 45 years by any citizens of the affected countries, whereas nearly 4000 have been killed by citizens of the UAE, SA, and Egypt. So apparently being able to ask for confirmation from those countries either hasn't been used at all, or doesn't work anyway. It's still wildly illogical to me. ..."
The confidence in reliable info may be false -:) But what would really clarify the picture is the real numbers. How many Somalis visited the US or Iranians monthly? Were the numbers higher/lower/comparable with Egyptians or Saudis? Because 1000 a year from Somalia would be hardly comparable with, say - 50,000 Egyptians.
How about Cubans traveling to US and Americans to Cuba? Castro may be revolutionists and Marxist, but hardly Cubans pose that much danger -:)
Nik wrote: "Krazykiwi wrote: "Ok, but, no US citizens in the US have been killed in the past 45 years by any citizens of the affected countries, whereas nearly 4000 have been killed by citizens of the UAE, SA,..."Nik, you're almost adorably sure it's innocent misplaced faith. I'm more inclined to think this has little to do with the US and it's interest in humans and everything to do with... well, here's a visual aid.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3YJUdGUk...
Krazykiwi wrote: "Nik, you're almost adorably sure it's innocent misplaced faith. I'm more inclined to think this has little to do with the US and it's interest in humans and everything to do with... well, here's a visual aid.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3YJUdGUk... ..."
Could be. We both don't know for sure, so it's guesswork on both sides. You can be right. It looks logical though to have business interests in friendly countries and not to have them in hostile. But even if Trump has biz interests in Saudia, what does he or Saudi royals care about some Mustafa or John having to postpone a trip for 3 months or experiencing troubles at passport control? They don't. The royals can be always accepted in Washington through a call or two.
Sure, can imagine a businessman all his life, being biz motivated and not switching his hat to another position.
With the wall on the border with Mexico - maybe some construction company is in dire need for new big construction commission? -:)
Michael wrote: "Read above, its not about the lives of Americans, its about money. Everything that America does have a financial underpinning to it. Its strange to me how people just swallow this media idea that America is concerned with human life and cares about refugees. Its almost laughable at this point. ..."
Suspect it might be true, hope - only to a degree -:)
Heh. This one is also a little entertaining. It's beds and toddlers should be banned, clearly.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3UGjGpUc...
Thanks everyone for commentating but before things get too heated I think I'll call a halt to this part of the discussion. I started it as a joke with a dose of sarcasm and we can finish on the number of US citizens killed by toddlers.Seems fitting - that's a joke too
Another joke - although I opened it I can't close it Nik I think you or one of the other moderators has to.
Ok, since it's your specific request, I'm closing it, although - I think the debate was in good spirit and not overly heated, but maybe it's only a thick skinned me -:)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
1. Large amount of crime exported from USA
2. Gun exports cause terrorism
3. On terrorism grounds US Americans are clearly a terrorism risk,
Therefore we need to protect the rest of the world until we sort out who and who not is a good American. A ninety day ban should suffice and given the imminent nature of the risk we need to impose this immediately and stop and cease all movement.
(I apologise to all my American friends but you elected him)