Problems that your corporate lords and master have tend to produce flow on costs that reach you, sooner or later. See my questions to Thazzarbaal, above. What do you think? Is there a problem that needs a solution, or not? If there is, what solution would you like to see? It would be eminently sensible for part of Biden's motivation to be that, sure. No doubt, certain Americans will be motivated the opposite way: they want negative effects on the US economy, which they can try to blame Biden's for. They would like to try to leverage Americans to support the election of a would-be autocrat who demonstrated his own incompetence in a previous term of office.
Agreed. We are seeing this in action on the immigration issue; republicans are trying to actively sabotage any improvements to the border so they can blame Biden for the problems.
Yup It's risky to reopen. Lives and cargo lost. Costs will likely increase and time of transit expected to increase. It's expected anyway. I wouldn't risk it over what's expected to happen anyway.
I think it would cause a conflagration across the whole Middle East. Iran would activate all its proxies, to attack Israel, to fight in Iraq and quite likely to have a pop at Saudi Arabia too, which is Iran's major regional rival and seen as an ally of the US. Iran itself would not be a pushover. It is an industrialised country with a population of ~90 million. And, as ever, what would be the objective and what the plan for the endgame? Regime change, with US boots on the ground to see it through? That worked really well in Iraq, ahem. If not that, then what? One would stop hostilities, at some currently undefined point, leaving in place a regime now confirmed in its anti-American worldview and vowing eternal revenge. Israel would most likely bear the brunt of that revenge in the short term, being the obviously accessible target. It would also complete the ruin of the USA's reputation for even-handedness in foreign affairs. China would love that outcome, as it would legitimise a grab for Taiwan, or the South China Sea, and make them a more popular Big Daddy for countries of the poor South. Not to mention how it would suit Putin. So, all in all, a good plan, eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I know you're not one of them, but I'm afraid I do get fed up with these lazy armchair generals making warlike statements with no thought as to what festering disasters most recent wars have created, nor for the wider geopolitical fallout, nor for human cost either, because it is the citizens of other nations that die.
I largely agree. Nation building rarely works. It's easier to start a war than to end one. The analogy is what does the barking dog do when he finally catches the car.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Diplomacy (which seems to be largely a thing of the past) is valuable in and of itself. If two sides continue talking, even if they don't both live up to their agreement, it's still better than war and some information is learned on both sides. The only argument, that I can see, for attacking Iran proper, is just to send a message, as the US did in Libya by attacking Kadafi's house when he was sponsoring much of the terrorists acts in Western Europe. He pretty much backed off after that. If there is going to be any attack of Iran it would mainly be because they aren't a nuclear power yet and it would be to stop them from becoming one. Of course taking any such coarse of action shouldn't be taken lightly. Which is why I said I largely agree with you but just was curious as to your specific views. Vietnam and Iraq were stupid wars and although Afghanistan had to be entered, it didn't have to turn into a 20 year attempt at nation building that was never going to be successful. The only potentially valid reason to attack Iran (at any point in time) would be to prevent it from being another nuclear power, IMO. If we could wind the clock back and prevent the USSR from becoming a nuclear power then Russia would now be nothing but a thorn in our side (not that winding the clock back would have prevented it either in reality). North Korea would probably be a better example.
Yup, though if I were Iran, surrounded as it is by nuclear powers (Israel, China, India, Pakistan), I too would want a bomb - not least to prevent being attacked by the USA! I actually don't think we should worry that much about Iran becoming a nuclear power. Nuclear weapons are only useful for defence, after all.
We used to think that with enough Air Marshals there would be no more airline hijackings since they all got caught. Then the suicide bombers came along and all bets were off. Rational players only use nuclear weapons for defense but are all authoritarian cult like leaders rational (including Trump)? Is Putin rational? Can we count on an Ayatollah to be rational? I can see why Iran might want one but do we want Iran to have one? I can see why North Korea wanted one but I don't think they should have one.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obviously it is better if they don't since, as you suggest, the more countries have them the more the risk some nutcase will try to use them aggressively. But as we have seen, Putin tried to do some sabre-rattling about nukes but has given that up, because we all know it's a bluff. In my view there are no grounds for thinking the Iranian regime, more than another, is irrational enough to try to use them aggressively. However this is drifting off-topic rather.
That seems akin to saying that guns in the hands of criminals is not an issue, because criminals know they will eventually be caught if they use the gun. True at a high level - not so true in practice. People (and countries) do not always act rationally. And if a country like Iran does ever use a nuclear weapon offensively, you can bet they will justify it as defense, because the US forced them to do it.
I heard that the border laws essentially haven't changed for several decades. Republicans delegated some of their representatives to conduct long, cooperative negotiations on how to improve things, before eventually deciding to torpedo the whole thing at the final hurdle. In the aftermath, individual Republicans are mostly pointed to other Republicans as those responsible for blocking the bill. Nobody wants to take responsibility. The tying of completely unrelated matters to the issue of immigration also makes zero sense, other than as a frustratingly common but cynical political manouver. The Party of Trump is completely dysfunctional and has been at least since its membership allowed the MAGA crowd to take over.
I was under the impression that Biden came in and countered Trumps past efforts to secure the border, then after 3 years in office decided it might be a good idea to get a better handle on immigration. Now, less than a year in in his tightened stance on border control efforts, you claim Trumps the problem and sabotaging Biden's efforts to make improvements". How does that work exactly? The mentality and mindset to blame Trump for what was done at onset of Biden's presidency?
Read the papers. Republicans are now opposing a Biden measure to tighten border security that gives them most of what they had been asking for, purely in order to keep the situation as bad as possible so that Trump can campaign to fix it. So that's how it works, exactly.
Republicans torpedoed the recent border patrol funding bill. They are now bragging about how they are shutting down any improvements to the border, because that way they can complain that Biden did it (just like you are.) https://www.newsweek.com/republican-brags-sabotaging-border-security-deal-1854820
Time frames associated? How do you spin the counter measures after the fact? On border control, I mean.
I vaguely remember something about a wall. Who ran with that one while campaigning? Oh, it was Trump What happened when Trump left office? Oh, that's right... The borders became a bigger issue due to counter measures against Trumps efforts.
After his promise of building a wall along the border and having Mexico pay for it, he built 52 miles of new wall. And we paid for it. The southern border is 1900 miles long. So after 4 years he increased fence coverage by 2.7%. So at that rate we'd have a border wall by 2060. It would do almost nothing, of course, since most illegal immigration comes in through legal entry points. Didn't FOX News mention that to you?
The borders were never shut. The borders were never completely opened. Now, as then, there are a lot of laws covering who can enter and who can't. Right now, for example, any refugee can show up at the border and request asylum. (They have to be in the US to do this.) Once they request it, the court gives them a date, then they are released inside the US until that date. That is all legal, and represents most of the immigrants we are seeing now. If they work during that time, or if they don't show up for their court date - THEN they are breaking the law. That's the way the law stands right now. Biden cannot turn away refugees or he would be breaking the law, and you can bet republicans would impeach him instantly. We can, of course, alter the law, and the latest bill tried to do just that. Republicans rejected it. Come Nov 6th, voters will remember which party was trying to fix the border - and which party refused for political reasons.
Legal entry points/illegal immigration, and most illegal immigrants passing through legal entry points seems a stretch. There's a whole world of human trafficking, tied to immigration and non legal entry. They pay to cross are required to work to do so, and are rarely released due to inability to pay the debts, but at least "most" illegal immigration comes in through legal channels. Uuuhuh ... Yup Fox news is sometimes too kind. Msnbc are harder on Trump. It pays to watch the opposition. Yup
