Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US

[metis]

Let's put it this way. I saw Saddam as a threat to the quasi-peace in the area. We know that he had ambitions to expand his rule in the area. So, yes I supported the war but not just because the threat of WMD (which he had by the way). However, the follow-up actions taken by the military (based on civilian control) was totally misguided. The idea that we could bring two sides together by playing the "nice guys" was asinine. The military control of the country was predicated on foggy bottom idealism. When you break a country you are totally responsible for it. If the US had done what MacArthur did in Japan I suspect that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. However, the destruction of various quasi-military entities probably would not have been accepted by the politicians. Yes, we would have been committed to stay in Iraq considerably longer than what the Obama administration would and did allow. So I blame the Bush/State Dept for the inept way they handled the war and the Obama/State Dept for not taking the advice of their military advisers and pulling out leaving a vaccume and a vindictive religious party in charge.

We had no choice but to pull out, for both the security of our troops and civilians there, which the Iraq's said they would prosecute in their courts for infractions versus us, plus the fact that the Iraqi leadership is Shi'a with close ties to Iran.

We encouraged and pushed for elections in Iraq, and elections have consequences, so for us to say that we'll ignore the order from the government there for us to get out makes no sense, and ignoring that order would have put our troops in an even more perilous position. If the people of Iraq didn't want us there, and the government in Iraq didn't want us there, where's our support to come from? All that would have happened is just seeing an increasing stream of American men and women coming home in body bags.


Added: btw, the elimination of Hussein empowered both Iran and al-Queda in Iraq, the latter of which morphed into ISIS/ISIL.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure if they are even mockable. I mean yeah, she's a woman, and as such must wear pant suits or skirts. So...how is that odd or funny?

That's a hard thing to say.
But she seems particularly lacking in color & style.
Mind you now, this is merely to poke fun.....not to criticize.

 

[Underhill]

That's a hard thing to say.
But she seems particularly lacking in color & style.
Mind you now, this is merely to poke fun.....not to criticize.

I'm with you. I just never noticed. It has to be a damn difficult thing to choose. I mean a guy can just throw on a suit. But if she dresses too 'girly' she won't be taken seriously. Too much grey, she's a cold hearted...#%$^ It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm with you. I just never noticed. It has to be a damn difficult thing to choose. I mean a guy can just throw on a suit. But if she dresses too 'girly' she won't be taken seriously. Too much grey, she's a cold hearted...#%$^ It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Try not wearing a suit (a claustrophobia inducing dull uniform), & then the men get upbraided.
What we need is clothing reform!

 

[esmith]

We had no choice but to pull out, for both the security of our troops and civilians there, which the Iraq's said they would prosecute in their courts for infractions versus us, plus the fact that the Iraqi leadership is Shi'a with close ties to Iran.

We encouraged and pushed for elections in Iraq, and elections have consequences, so for us to say that we'll ignore the order from the government there for us to get out makes no sense, and ignoring that order would have put our troops in an even more perilous position. If the people of Iraq didn't want us there, and the government in Iraq didn't want us there, where's our support to come from? All that would have happened is just seeing an increasing stream of American men and women coming home in body bags.


Added: btw, the elimination of Hussein empowered both Iran and al-Queda in Iraq, the latter of which morphed into ISIS/ISIL.

I disagree with you on various points, but the major one is the Status of Force Agreement. Iraq lost the war and if we so desired to push the point that we were going to stay the Iraq government would have signed the agreement. However the Obama and his administration, including the Hillary, didn't want to stay. One of the Obama's major point of his campaign was getting us out of Iraq whether it was a bad idea or not. And as it now stands it was a bad idea.

 

[Underhill]

I disagree with you on various points, but the major one is the Status of Force Agreement. Iraq lost the war and if we so desired to push the point that we were going to stay the Iraq government would have signed the agreement. However the Obama and his administration, including the Hillary, didn't want to stay. One of the Obama's major point of his campaign was getting us out of Iraq whether it was a bad idea or not. And as it now stands it was a bad idea.

So how long should we have stayed? Because I would have bet large sums that whenever we decided to pull out, it would have been a 'bad idea'.

 

[MARCELLO]

Trump talks like and expresses himself like an average Joe. Joe next door does not like muslims anymore,deny? Sure ,it is your right to do so far,but what will change? It is not just the potential menace of orientals of so called mideast against west. This is sth different; And average Joe will like his thoughts though may be ashamed to say so.

I pretty much dislike him due to his feminine dyed blonde hair ,he looks ever more than disgusting. I don't appreciate his fortune either,which was just money brings money without effort.

 

[metis]

I disagree with you on various points, but the major one is the Status of Force Agreement. Iraq lost the war and if we so desired to push the point that we were going to stay the Iraq government would have signed the agreement. However the Obama and his administration, including the Hillary, didn't want to stay. One of the Obama's major point of his campaign was getting us out of Iraq whether it was a bad idea or not. And as it now stands it was a bad idea.

But that's not what happened. Stop and think, why would the Iraqi government that was aligned with the Shi'a leadership want us to stay? We know they didn't want us to stay, and the only way we could have stayed would be to ignore their demands, which then leaves us with no internal support.

And why was leaving a "bad idea"? How many more tours of duty would we subject our troops to? What of our men and women in uniform and civilians working there coming home in body bags? Do you honestly believe for one minute that the American public wanted to see more of this when surveys clearly indicated that the public wanted us out?

 

[metis]

So how long should we have stayed? Because I would have bet large sums that whenever we decided to pull out, it would have been a 'bad idea'.

Exactly, and to go along with your point is the simple fact that there simply was no optimism that our deployment could end with any success whatsoever. The Green Zone in Baghdad was even being hit more and more near the end.

What is it going to take for some to realize that we are not going to have our way there in the long run because they live there and we don't? Instead, our actions going in there benefited Iran by removing Iran's chief antagonist, Saddam, and it helped in the creation of ISIS.

 

[Crypto2015]

I don't like Trump at all, but he has a point when he talks about reducing Muslim immigration to the US. Just look at what's going on in Europe. The Muslim immigrants and their sons are being used by the left to obtain votes. The left accommodates as many Muslim demands as possible in order to keep those votes coming, and those demands destroy more and more of the liberties that people have in Europe. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political movement. This political movement is thoroughly incompatible with Western liberties and democracy. So, an increasing Muslim population guarantees high levels of social unrest.

 

[Underhill]

I don't like Trump at all, but he has a point when he talks about reducing Muslim immigration to the US. Just look at what's going on in Europe. The Muslim immigrants and their sons are being used by the left to obtain votes. The left accommodates as many Muslim demands as possible in order to keep those votes coming, and those demands destroy more and more of the liberties that people have in Europe. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political movement. This political movement is thoroughly incompatible with Western liberties and democracy. So, an increasing Muslim population guarantees high levels of social unrest.

First, I don't buy the notion that the muslims are all anything. Just like christians, there are varieties of the muslim faith that call for different interpretations of the law and even different levels of adherence. If christians took the entire bible literally (which some do) they would believe women should be subservient and the correct punishment for adultery (by women) is stoning. But most christians don't believe that, just as a huge swath of muslims don't believe in the strict interpretations of Sharia law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree with you on various points, but the major one is the Status of Force Agreement. Iraq lost the war and if we so desired to push the point that we were going to stay the Iraq government would have signed the agreement. However the Obama and his administration, including the Hillary, didn't want to stay. One of the Obama's major point of his campaign was getting us out of Iraq whether it was a bad idea or not. And as it now stands it was a bad idea.

It was a bad idea going in the first place. Bin Laden knew we are easily provoked, and his strategy for defeating America was working out perfectly, and it appears to still be working out exactly as he planned that, and it involved getting America involved in lengthy ground wars in the Middle East to bankrupt us. Trillions of dollars spent later, and our nation is strongly divided as we argue over social spending benefits and sending more people back over there. But, unfortunately those threatened most by ISIS are doing nothing about them, ISIS is posing a greater danger to the West, and we may have to become involved again. But hopefully a lesson was learned in that you cannot fight an unconventional enemy with conventional warfare, as it won't defeat terrorism and keep other terrorist groups from rising up. The Middle East is going to be a boiling point of civil disturbances, political instability, and widespread violence for the foreseeable long-term future, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we quit continually getting involved into nasty and sometimes long-term situations. They just had a centuries old-empire collapse a century ago, and when the inevitable internal power struggles from such a collapse began, they got to start with borders that a group of outsiders drew, and ethnicities with hostilities and wars against each other were mixed in together in some places, so conditions in this post-Ottoman Middle East are off to an especially explosive start.

 

[Crypto2015]

First, I don't buy the notion that the muslims are all anything. Just like christians, there are varieties of the muslim faith that call for different interpretations of the law and even different levels of adherence. If christians took the entire bible literally (which some do) they would believe women should be subservient and the correct punishment for adultery (by women) is stoning. But most christians don't believe that, just as a huge swath of muslims don't believe in the strict interpretations of Sharia law.

The Muslims are those who believe in the tenets of Islam. Islam teaches that women and men are not equal before the law, that women can be beaten by their husbands, that men can have sex with women as young as nine years old, that man-made laws should be replaced with Islamic law, that Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal before the law, that non-Muslims cannot serve in the army or own weapons, that non-Muslims cannot repair their temples, that non-Muslims should walk on the narrowest side of the street if there is a Muslim walking on that street, that non-Muslims must pay special taxes, that non-Muslims are the lowest of beasts, etc. Perhaps not all Muslims know these things, but if they identify themselves as Muslims they implicitly endorse these things.

Regarding Christianity, if you take the Bible as a whole you would never stone anyone. The New Testament states clearly and repeatedly that the Law of Moses should not be applied by the Church. This is stated in Acts 15:1-29. That's why Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery in John 8:1-11.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Muslims are those who believe in the tenets of Islam. Islam teaches that women and men are not equal before the law, that women can be beaten by their husbands, that men can have sex with women as young as nine years old, that man-made laws should be replaced with Islamic law, that Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal before the law, that non-Muslims cannot serve in the army or own weapons, that non-Muslims cannot repair their temples, that non-Muslims should walk on the narrowest side of the street if there is a Muslim walking on that street, that non-Muslims must pay special taxes, that non-Muslims are the lowest of beasts, etc. Perhaps not all Muslims know these things, but if they identify themselves as Muslims they implicitly endorse these things.

Regarding Christianity, if you take the Bible as a whole you would never stone anyone. The New Testament states clearly and repeatedly that the Law of Moses should not be applied by the Church. This is stated in Acts 15:1-29. That's why Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery in John 8:1-11.

You don't seem to know the Quran or Bible that well. They both have good, they both have bad. The Quran contradicts itself by saying to kill non-believers on one page, and on another page to be compassionate towards them to help guide them towards the true religion but you can't force them because they have to find the path themselves. The Bible also contains many contradictory statements, especially if we break it into three parts; Tanakh/OT, the Gospels, and the books of Paul. According to the OT, women can be sold into slavery, sex slavery is permitted, and they can be stoned for adultery. According to Paul, they are not be above men in church, they are to be subservient to men, and they are not to even speak in church. And then there is the parable with the king saying to kill those who didn't want him to be their king, which can easily be interpreted as killing the "wicked servent," aka, the "infidel."

 

[Underhill]

The Muslims are those who believe in the tenets of Islam. Islam teaches that women and men are not equal before the law, that women can be beaten by their husbands, that men can have sex with women as young as nine years old, that man-made laws should be replaced with Islamic law, that Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal before the law, that non-Muslims cannot serve in the army or own weapons, that non-Muslims cannot repair their temples, that non-Muslims should walk on the narrowest side of the street if there is a Muslim walking on that street, that non-Muslims must pay special taxes, that non-Muslims are the lowest of beasts, etc. Perhaps not all Muslims know these things, but if they identify themselves as Muslims they implicitly endorse these things.

Regarding Christianity, if you take the Bible as a whole you would never stone anyone. The New Testament states clearly and repeatedly that the Law of Moses should not be applied by the Church. This is stated in Acts 15:1-29. That's why Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery in John 8:1-11.

Yeah, but you are missing something important here. Which parts of the laws of moses should no longer be applied? Because Jesus also said...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.a18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.b19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commandsc and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The reality is that the bible leaves these things open to interpretation. Some believe in all of the old testament, most believe parts of it still apply. Some believe none of it applies.

Most christians, if we are honest, have no idea what the bible actually says and just try to be good by their own personal definition and go to church occasionally. But that is another discussion...

Muslims are much the same way. There are many contradictory portions of the Koran that say they should be peaceful people and treat those not of the faith with respect. So pick your poison.

 

[Crypto2015]

You don't seem to know the Quran or Bible that well. They both have good, they both have bad. The Quran contradicts itself by saying to kill non-believers on one page, and on another page to be compassionate towards them to help guide them towards the true religion but you can't force them because they have to find the path themselves. The Bible also contains many contradictory statements, especially if we break it into three parts; Tanakh/OT, the Gospels, and the books of Paul. According to the OT, women can be sold into slavery, sex slavery is permitted, and they can be stoned for adultery. According to Paul, they are not be above men in church, they are to be subservient to men, and they are not to even speak in church. And then there is the parable with the king saying to kill those who didn't want him to be their king, which can easily be interpreted as killing the "wicked servent," aka, the "infidel."

I can support everything I have said. What makes you think that I don't know the Bible and the Qur'an? If you think so, prove it instead of just claiming it. By the way, the contradictions in the Qur'an are solved through a concept known as abrogation (Naskh). Google it. The Bible does not contain contradictory statements. Regarding your false claims about the Bible, you are wrong in all of them, but they are too many to discuss them in one post. So, pick one in particular. By the way, Jesus never instructed anyone to slay people. The passage you cited is about God judging mankind at the end of times. Just read the immediate context of that passage.

 

[Crypto2015]

Yeah, but you are missing something important here. Which parts of the laws of moses should no longer be applied? Because Jesus also said...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.a18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.b19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commandsc and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The reality is that the bible leaves these things open to interpretation. Some believe in all of the old testament, most believe parts of it still apply. Some believe none of it applies.

Most christians, if we are honest, have no idea what the bible actually says and just try to be good by their own personal definition and go to church occasionally. But that is another discussion...

Muslims are much the same way. There are many contradictory portions of the Koran that say they should be peaceful people and treat those not of the faith with respect. So pick your poison.

The Law of Moses is eternal as a spiritual guide, but it should not be applied as a legal code by Christians. That means that adultery will always be wrong, but we don't stone anyone for adultery. If someone believes that the Old Testament should still be applied as a legal code, he is either ignorant or stupid. You can't blame God for it. By the way, the Qur'an is not to be picked and chosen. There is a strict method of interpretation called Naskh that says that if two passages of the Qur'an contradict each other the older passage is superseded by the newest one. All of the kind and peaceful passages of the Qur'an date from the Mecca period, when Muhammad was weak and harmless. All of the aggressive passages of the Qur'an date from the Medina period, when Muhammad was powerful enough to kill his opponents. Hence, the peaceful verses are superseded by the aggressive ones.

 

[esmith]

So how long should we have stayed? Because I would have bet large sums that whenever we decided to pull out, it would have been a 'bad idea'.

Until the situation is stable. You can not put a "pull out" date on this like the Obama did. Look how long we have been in South Korea, and Germany.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By the way, Jesus never instructed anyone to slay people. The passage you cited is about God judging mankind at the end of times. Just read the immediate context of that passage.

Zacchaues was going "Look, Lord, just look what I'm doing!" which is something we know Jesus didn't approve of. When Jesus talks of the parable, it can easily be read that he is the King, as he was sent to the Earth, a far country, for a time, and then would return to Heaven. His servants, us humans, were sent out to the world, and Jesus warned many times that people would not like Christians, would not like himself, and would rebel against God. And even though his ways are hard, those who followed them, and his ways (which included not being a show off) are rewarded with treasures in heaven that far exceed any wealth given to them on earth, just as the servants who were given 10 minas to start with were rewarded with the governance of cities equal to the interest they earned. They kept their faith, they had, and they were given more. But those that had none, those wicked servants those that did not want the king to rule over them and follow his hard ways, they were ordered to be brought before the king and executed.

Regarding your false claims about the Bible, you are wrong in all of them,

My claims are not false.

 

[Father Heathen]

Until the situation is stable. You can not put a "pull out" date on this like the Obama did. Look how long we have been in South Korea, and Germany.

Rather than blame the person who inherited a no-win situation, instead blame the one who created it in the first place?