Warning: Military history buff's somewhat OT and OTT rant on the war in Afghanistan upcoming: The thing about wars is that even if you win, you probably will be disappointed in the result, while if you lose, you definitely will be. That's one reason not to start a war voluntarily unless you're sure you'll win. That and the fact that you're sentencing thousands or millions of people to death quite unfairly, if you care about that sort of thing. The people we know as the Afghans (who are actually a number of peoples) have been successfully fighting off invaders for over 2300 years. The war the US started there was almost certain to end in defeat. We did so anyway, on the grounds that we were good and mad, and almost everyone thought it was a good idea. That's like conducting open heart surgery by ripping out the existing heart and slapping another one in on the grounds that you thought it was a good idea and most people were as ignorant as you were. If you don't know **** about open heart surgery, don't conduct one. If you don't know **** about military history, don't think you can decide whether to start a war. Good intentions count for about as much in both cases. If in any doubt in the future, popular culture has thoughtfully summed the matter up. Rant over.
Cannot find a link to the report yet, but Channel 4 News has just run a piece on a British Consultant Cardiologist prevented from attending a conference in the US yesterday - stopped from boarding a United Airlines flight as she was excluded under the new edict. The young woman is BRITISH. She was born in the U.K. and only has a British passport and has only been banned as she has the audacity to have an Arabic name. Please, apologists for Trump, do not start pontificating that this policy is not racist!!!
When you examine the records showing the heritage of U.S. citizens, the largest group are of German origin. Applying Trump's logic, all Germans are potentially Nazis and for the sake of U.S. security (and indeed the world), they should all be removed and not permitted to return. As Trump's family changed their name from Drumpf - meaning that he is clearly of Germanic descent himself- he should go too. As he's allegedly half Scottish and Tresemme and the Queen are so fond of him, perhaps he can be rehomed on some remote Scottish island where he see out the remainder of his days worrying sheep, banning seagulls or whatever lunacy takes his fancy.
His grandparents were German immigrants and his mother was Scottish. She was from Tong, which may well be the place that you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tong,_Lewis
That's great. The shop is open Monday to Saturday and sells a wide range of essentials including bread, milk and Stornaway black pudding. Megalomaniacs welcome
That's not Trump's policy though. Blaming the country's President for an error made my an airline's member of staff seems a bit harsh. Though that's hardly a surprise seeing as the guy was bound to get set up by the baying lynch mob whatever he did (or didnt).
Really? Channel 4 News??? The policy is at best ill-thought and certainly driven by ignorance. It was enacted recklessly, without the briefest consideration either for those likely to be wrongly caught up in it - or indeed for those officials and employees around the world having to try and administer it!
And the british public reacts in this manner to every policy of the US government that meets those criteria, does it ?
So, to recap, in his first 12 days in office Trump has managed to, instill an illegal ban on people from some Muslim nations. Get into a shouting match and hang up on the Prime Minister of Australia, and threaten to invade Mexico. Future looks bright for us all then!...
I think Trump is a disaster but I do wonder why we cannot at lest try not to go overboard. Was this "an illegal ban on people.... " - I am not sure - some claim it was. However, stupid as the policy is, it was really a security issue. 7 countries identified by Obama do not have vetting procedures for their citizens. Trump used this unwisely to set up his few month moratorium. OK - not clever, probably xenophobic in line with his other pronouncements, unhelpful etc etc - but come on - if this was not Trump it would not have this degree of attention. We are very one sided in our demonstrations - maybe we dislike the USA and Trump so it is a good excuse - but there are plenty of other repressive regimes out there.
He basically told Giuliani that he wanted to put a ban on Muslims, and asked him for advice on how he could do it.
...as well as use the prayer breakfast as a platform to throw childish jibes at Arnold Schwarzenegger, repeatedly get triggered by anyone suggesting that his inauguration wasn't the best-attended inauguration in US history, signed an anti-abortion order that threatens a funding cut to any healthcare group that advises abortions, sacked an Attorney General because they didn't agree with him, and approved an oil pipeline on Native American land regardless of the cultural or environmental impact it will have. Meanwhile, his key personnel have given us the term "alternative facts" and made up the Bowling Green Massacre. So much for the "give him a chance" brigade...
And I note he has today decided to settle the Class Action suits in relation to his 'Trump University'.... Despite promising to fight them.... Basically admitting to defrauding THOUSANDS of investors in the courses. But that shouldn't influence our general opinion of the man and his suitability for holding office either I suppose?
I mentioned it before, but what is this ban actually for and what will it achieve? Very few Americans will be killed by Muslim terrorists in America this year compared to say, being shot by other non-Muslim Americans. If the policy concerns safety and security, then there are many other things he could do to make the American people safer. The only explanation is the subjective argument that being killed by a terrorist is somehow worse than being killed by some other method. I would argue that being killed unlawfully is equally as bad regardless of how it happens.
Giuliani has admitted it. Obviously, banning them on purely religious grounds goes against the constitution and would be totally illegal. So, he asked Giuliani to tell him how he could do it at least arguably legally. The fact that Saudi - who supplied 15 of the 19 2001 conspirators, or Qatar who have been shown to have sponsored terriorist groups, but are not included on that list, is just blatant hypocrisy.
