DaveP said:
We did not find out until much later that the US caused the Cuban missile crisis because they had installed missiles on Turkey's border with Russia. The agreement with Khrushchev that they would quietly be taken away in 3 months was to be kept secret. That is an example of a very stupid and dangerous action that the US did. Russian containment again. I think that any scolding of the US by its allies goes on behind closed doors to preserve the illusion of unity.
I understand, and I get that you're critical of the US, but the question is at what point you think that deserves any action whatsoever.
Again, the argument you made was that supporting terrorists makes a nation "bad", and the above isn't that, it is something arguably less 'bad'. But in talking about the above you ignore the world court's ruling on US' actions towards Nicaragua, complete with the verdict for the US to pay reparations, exactly because it supported terrorism. So, again, why on earth aren't we labeling the US as being just as bad? The answer is simply that "they" are bad when they do it, and "we" aren't when we do.
So therefore something else must constitute the difference, right? It's not what is done, it is who does it. So how is that "group" defined? What are the characteristics that we
then use to discriminate between people? That's what I'm getting at.
Look, here's an obvious one:
DaveP said:
Just for the record so you don't think I'm being too slippery: I hate religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim. Every non secular government that I have observed has done bad things to its people in the name of religion. That is another reason why I don't like the Iranian government, I think most Iranians are obviously fine, (most people are) but I think their government is oppressive. Hammas is another example so is North Korea where the religion is the leader. Saudi Arabia is not much better in the way it treats women, they are still in the middle ages.
Yes, religion as a factor to discriminate between people. Now, it may or may not surprise you but I actually don't think religious views are something one should be immune from being judged by. It's no different than political ideology in that it's simply something that exists in a person's head, not something objective and proven, like gravity or global warming.
However, the problem I have with this is as I said first of all that the executive order in the US appears to be violating the US constitution, and as such poses a huge problem if it is left to stand. It is the first slip on a very slippery slope. The other problem I have with what you bring up though is exactly how you characterize Iran versus Saudi Arabia for example. They aren't even close as far as I can see. While they both certainly have pragmatic leaders without a death wish, there are far more and far stronger movements in Iran for a more moderate society, and women are faaar better off there. In addition to this they didn't export hijackers the flew airplanes into buildings in my home town. Know what I mean?
So I reiterate that this executive order is very problematic exactly because of the nations included and because of the clear anti-Muslim undertone. You can couple all of this with calls from people in power to check social media, cell phone contact lists etc on entry to the US to check your background. Now, one can
at best justify that using national security as an argument, but not without also accepting that the US is now a nation that looks inside people's heads to ascertain if they're guilty of thought crimes or not. As far as I can see this isn't the "freedom" Americans proudly proclaim is what they're defending.
DaveP said:
Regarding immigration: I am not opposed to it in principle, but I question the degree to which it has been allowed. A gradual assimilation over time is fine, but wholesale transformation of towns and cities is quite another. The problem is compounded when immigrants don't stop at the 1- 3 children that we have, so that the population grows even more. This is all the fault of disconnected government whose politicians don't mix or live in the circles where the immigration impacts. This is what causes things like Brexit and Trump.
Immigrant populations that have a higher birth rate, as far as I recall from looking at actual statistics on that specific matter (I did actually), has the birth rate drop in successive generations. In other words everything from birth control education to increased freedom for women (yes, to have abortions even) to a different sense of security financially lead to 2nd generation immigrants and their children having lower birth rates. So it's really just a problem of primarily that first generation.
As for that causing Brexit and Trump; I don't fully agree with that. I think xenophobia, racism and a need for a scapegoat to deal with the lack of progression in society are a bigger reason than cultural changes. It's easier to deal with changes when everyone in the middle class on down is doing well financially. When things aren't progressing it has to be someone's fault. If it's our politicians' fault and we voted them in then it's really our fault. Feels much better to blame those who came here who are different.
