happney65:


He invaded Afghanistan because they gave Osama Shelter..Agreed..What about Iraq?Came up with lies that saddam had WMD's which was false..Ohh he only wanted to use that to take the Oil..In Trump's voice "We should have taken the Oil"..As if na hin Papa Oil..

raumdeuter:


Sources of terror means what? their country of birth or the country that harbours them and make then thrive? This is where understanding is key

When fighting Boko Haram which one does it make sense to attack, Shekau's fathers compound where he was born over 40yrs ago, or Sambisa forest where he made his base?

Missy89:


This post lacks basic common sense. If trump said we SHOULD HAVE taken the oil, that means the war wasn't about oil. Simple logic.

If the war was about oil, how come Russia and France( the 2 countries who opposed the war) were buying most of the oil before the war and China is buying most of it after the war?

Mindfulness:


Ring a bell?

LordReed:


OK then explain the exclusion of Afghanistan and inclusion of Iraq. Is the Iraq government supporting terrorism?

LordReed:


OK then explain the exclusion of Afghanistan and inclusion of Iraq. Is the Iraq government supporting terrorism?

Missy89:


No it doesn't.

Missy89:


No it was saying that those nations are terrorist hotspots and people traveling from there can't be verified. Maybe you should read it.

Missy89:
.

A large percentage of Iraq is under Isis control. By the way, Iraq is not on the new list ( significant territorial loss by ISIS there in recent weeks)

raumdeuter:


You see where the knowledge gap is? How was Afghanistan excluded? Are you talking about the wars or what? Do you even know what you are talking about?

LordReed:


And Afghanistan?

Missy89:


A black Muslim talking about mental slavery

vedaxcool:
[s][/s]

Mai guardi let me know when you have unshackled yourself from mental slavery.

Missy89:


Troops still there

LordReed:


And there are no troops in Iraq?

Mindfulness:
"Assad has proven he is capable of chemical weapons attacks on his own citizens and the location and described circumstances of the attack suggest Syrian government action. However, as I carefully read news articles trying to identify the sources of information leading to that conclusion, I am hopeful that the NY Times is engaging in true investigative journalism, not relying on uncorroborated witness and US government statements. We need not to leap onto the type of bandwagon that got us into a protracted military action in Iraq over mythical WMD. The Trump administration has many reasons to want a distraction, particularly one that suggests his administration has no illicit ties to Russia, and the political theater leading to the missile attacks was readily apparent yesterday. I am not questioning Trump's sincerity at being horrified about what happened to the Syrian citizens in Idlib province. I am questioning his motives for unilaterally and rapidly launching 59 missiles into Syria without Congressional authorization or UN Security Council consensus, at a time when the international community will support a first US step toward going to a war in Syria. It may not be the exact war Trump wanted to fight in Syria, but he demonstrated clearly during the election cycle that he wants one. It is not at all clear the US going to war in Syria will do anything to help Syrian citizens. Accepting Syrian refugees into this country would clearly help."

Pat Scatena San Francisco

Missy89:


This post lacks basic common sense. If trump said we SHOULD HAVE taken the oil, that means the war wasn't about oil. Simple logic.

If the war was about oil, how come Russia and France( the 2 countries who opposed the war) were buying most of the oil before the war and China is buying most of it after the war?

Mindfulness:
"[...]Just as an aside, as someone who has worn the uniform, this is truly a sorry state of affairs when the lives of our military are on the line. But, what stands out to me in this article is the allegation that the Russians didn't bother to use their vaunted air defense systems even though they were given the heads up. If this is true, the Syrians must be doubting the faithfulness of their Russian allies. And we in the U.S. must doubt the necessity of the strike, the wasteful nature of using 59 cruise missiles to crater an air field and destroy a few MIGs that were already out of commission. Did Trump just launch a $100 million fireworks display to impress Assad, the Chinese, the North Koreans or the red state voters currently suffering from buyers' remorse?"

Joe White Plains

LordReed:


I just went through it there is nothing like terrorist hotspots in it. All it states is the people from such and such countries are temporarily banned from entry:

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

SOURCE

oyb:


how many missiles does one need to blow up a runway?

Mindfulness:
"Assad has proven he is capable of chemical weapons attacks on his own citizens and the location and described circumstances of the attack suggest Syrian government action. However, as I carefully read news articles trying to identify the sources of information leading to that conclusion, I am hopeful that the NY Times is engaging in true investigative journalism, not relying on uncorroborated witness and US government statements. We need not to leap onto the type of bandwagon that got us into a protracted military action in Iraq over mythical WMD. The Trump administration has many reasons to want a distraction, particularly one that suggests his administration has no illicit ties to Russia, and the political theater leading to the missile attacks was readily apparent yesterday. I am not questioning Trump's sincerity at being horrified about what happened to the Syrian citizens in Idlib province. I am questioning his motives for unilaterally and rapidly launching 59 missiles into Syria without Congressional authorization or UN Security Council consensus, at a time when the international community will support a first US step toward going to a war in Syria. It may not be the exact war Trump wanted to fight in Syria, but he demonstrated clearly during the election cycle that he wants one. It is not at all clear the US going to war in Syria will do anything to help Syrian citizens. Accepting Syrian refugees into this country would clearly help."

Pat Scatena San Francisco

vedaxcool:


how does Trump comments disprove what Bush intentions were for going to war in Iraq? mai guardi aka aunty ruckus Trump comment is plainly foolish from every point of view how do you take oil? Steal the oil? I assumed being a mai guardi would afford you lots of time to read, how do you take the oil?

Missy89:


A black Muslim talking about mental slavery

Missy89:


Hey emotional kid, it is simple English. If bush intention was to take the oil and America won the war by ousting Saddam. Did bush change is mind about the oil after winning and gave the oil to China?

vedaxcool:


Emotional wreck, it is basic common sense, the Iraqis reaction made all the oil trouble look pointless! Aunty ruckus

Missy89:


You need glasses. Same link had this in there

The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. 



Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.


Sec. 3.  Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.


To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f),

LordReed:



We were having a civil discussion and then you decide to be condescending do you think that's the best?





Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. How does this translate to terrorist hotspots?

Missy89:


Emotional kid, if Bush didn't give a damn about what the world thinks and invade a country for oil, why do you think he gives a shite about what Iraqis have to say?

You need a brain

LordReed:



We were having a civil discussion and then you decide to be condescending do you think that's the best?





Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.

How does this translate to terrorist hotspots?