Syrian Refugees in the USA

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, Darth, it's a bit of a relief for the true motives to be shown instead of all the waffling about "integration" and "terrorist risks". This is fear of Muslims, plain and simple.

We don't need a violent overthrow by Christians in this country imposing the Christian equivalent of Shariah law because they are already in office. Just ask Vice President Mike "hang the gays" Pence, or the Rapist In Chief.

Terry Pratchett said that Wisdom is one of the few objects that appears larger from a distance. I think the same thing applies to sexism, homophobia, and extremism.

Fuzzy, is everything you say going to be just accusing people of motives you pull from your ass?

How is going from "Muslims on average are more prone to extremism and less tolerant" to "you are motivated by fear of muslims" an ass pull?

Let's go down the list.

For my motivation, I spoke of inhabitants of the Middle East and, secondarily, Muslims, when I could get no better data. I did not mention Islam in general, nor Muslims from other parts of the world.

If you know that Mike pence has been hanging gays or has said that he wants to hang gays, I'd love to hear it.

If you know of anything that substantiates accusations of rape against Trump, likewise.

If you have evidence that the Trump administration has been trying to push Christianity on anyone, also,likewise. The closest I can think of are blue laws, which are local, and have been with us long before the Cheeto in Chief was born, much less took office.

Finding people you want to hate and then assigning them motives to justify it, if that is what you are doing, may make you feel better about yourself... But it isn't a very effective way to relate to the real world. If doing actual good in the world the rest of us live in is important to you, you might want to take a step back once in a while and question your assumptions.

Okay then. Blanket fear of people from the Middle East. Better? It still seems to come from a very similar mindset in worldview.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sa ... ple-685759

Do efforts at legalizing discrimination against formerly protected classes in the name of Religious Freedom count? Or the Transgender military ban attempts? Or bans on immigrants/refugees from Muslim-dominated countries?

Blanket fear of people from the Middle East doesn't apply, either. Israel's fine. Turkey's fine. Jordanians are a pretty nifty bunch.

Did you read the Newsweek article you linked? This was Newsweek, not exactly a bastion of the far right, calling Trump's remark a joke.

Trump's ban of trans people from military service would count if he's said, "And these trans folks are an affront to God!" instead of citing medical costs and disruption. The travel bans were for terror hot spots, not a ban on all Muslims.

[CharlesPhipps]

We are going in circles on refugees intentions. On that part, I rest.

Okay.

Russia may find ISIS a rough sort of enemy, and ISIS may find Russia an equally difficult enemy. I'm honestly more concerned about ISIS than Russia. Russia seems determined to be in opposition to us, but doesn't seem to consider our deaths to be a holy calling. In any case, I'm happy for them to expend their blood and treasure on each other.

I have little doubt ISIS is on its last legs due to the fact it's been slaughtered by the Iraqi military on a street to street level who turns out to have a serious issue with genocide against its people. Russia's issue is that it has more or less been promised everything by Assad in an attempt to secure their protection (which has so far worked). When Assad resumed his position without any sort of formal agreement between international relations to get Russia to stop supporting him, they will gain a substantial boost from the fact he'll be free to plunder the Syrian economy as well as natural resources that will expand their power base.

Which is a net loss for the American economy, geopolitical position, and influence.

The genocide thing, frankly, I can live with. We're not the world's policemen, and I think most problems in the Middle East are caused by people in the Middle East, even with the botched mess Europe made splitting up the Ottoman Empire after WW 1. And sometimes someone else's problems today are solved by somebody else without us having to lift a finger.

Except it is our job because every nation in the world is obligated by international treaty to interfere in genocide and put a stop to them. That's why there was such a disgusting display by America during Rwanda as the administration referred to it as "genocide like acts" to avoid involving themselves. The United States also made many actual treaties which are designed around forging alliances with governments for the sake of providing military protection in exchange for things like economic benefits or trade or free port.

Everyone is technically legally obligated to intervene but the US military has many agreements to aid in the protection as well defense of groups. The people on the ground fighting against ISIS include many people who have been personal allies of the United States. The Kurdish region of Iraq, for example, was under US administration from the original Gulf War until Saddam's overthrow.

It's the most confusing part here for me as you'd think in America, Celestial Temple of Capitalism, we'd under the concept of a "deal is a deal." The world is a safer place for the role of treaties and agreements as well as promises to prevent certain acts from happening. You can just throw them all into the fire and say, "I don't have to because I don't want to" but if your word is worthless then why should anyone give a shit in return?

And America can't stand on its own, it will die. We are part of the whole.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Well, Darth, it's a bit of a relief for the true motives to be shown instead of all the waffling about "integration" and "terrorist risks". This is fear of Muslims, plain and simple.

We don't need a violent overthrow by Christians in this country imposing the Christian equivalent of Shariah law because they are already in office. Just ask Vice President Mike "hang the gays" Pence, or the Rapist In Chief.

Terry Pratchett said that Wisdom is one of the few objects that appears larger from a distance. I think the same thing applies to sexism, homophobia, and extremism.

Fuzzy, is everything you say going to be just accusing people of motives you pull from your ass?

How is going from "Muslims on average are more prone to extremism and less tolerant" to "you are motivated by fear of muslims" an ass pull?

Let's go down the list.

For my motivation, I spoke of inhabitants of the Middle East and, secondarily, Muslims, when I could get no better data. I did not mention Islam in general, nor Muslims from other parts of the world.

If you know that Mike pence has been hanging gays or has said that he wants to hang gays, I'd love to hear it.

If you know of anything that substantiates accusations of rape against Trump, likewise.

If you have evidence that the Trump administration has been trying to push Christianity on anyone, also,likewise. The closest I can think of are blue laws, which are local, and have been with us long before the Cheeto in Chief was born, much less took office.

Finding people you want to hate and then assigning them motives to justify it, if that is what you are doing, may make you feel better about yourself... But it isn't a very effective way to relate to the real world. If doing actual good in the world the rest of us live in is important to you, you might want to take a step back once in a while and question your assumptions.

Okay then. Blanket fear of people from the Middle East. Better? It still seems to come from a very similar mindset in worldview.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sa ... ple-685759

Do efforts at legalizing discrimination against formerly protected classes in the name of Religious Freedom count? Or the Transgender military ban attempts? Or bans on immigrants/refugees from Muslim-dominated countries?

Blanket fear of people from the Middle East doesn't apply, either. Israel's fine. Turkey's fine. Jordanians are a pretty nifty bunch.

Did you read the Newsweek article you linked? This was Newsweek, not exactly a bastion of the far right, calling Trump's remark a joke.

Trump's ban of trans people from military service would count if he's said, "And these trans folks are an affront to God!" instead of citing medical costs and disruption. The travel bans were for terror hot spots, not a ban on all Muslims.

Do you honestly believe that the "medical costs" are the real reason, or do you define religious extremism as being explicit and brazen?

If it was based on terror hotspots, why WASN'T isreal included then? There's a lot of shit going down there last time I checked.

[Darth Wedgius]

I have little doubt ISIS is on its last legs due to the fact it's been slaughtered by the Iraqi military on a street to street level who turns out to have a serious issue with genocide against its people. Russia's issue is that it has more or less been promised everything by Assad in an attempt to secure their protection (which has so far worked). When Assad resumed his position without any sort of formal agreement between international relations to get Russia to stop supporting him, they will gain a substantial boost from the fact he'll be free to plunder the Syrian economy as well as natural resources that will expand their power base.

Which is a net loss for the American economy, geopolitical position, and influence.

Russia will get a piece of, ultimately, Syria's oil wealth. Right now Syria's economy is in a shambles (it has one of the worst cases of hyperinflation anywhere) and if Russia wants it, that's fine. Imagine the reaction in the U.S. congress if Greece applied for statehood. In the long run, though, yes, Russia will get economic and political support from Syria, but Syria's never been an ally. All that money will still be in the "we don't like America" pot; it'll just be divvied up differently.

The genocide thing, frankly, I can live with. We're not the world's policemen, and I think most problems in the Middle East are caused by people in the Middle East, even with the botched mess Europe made splitting up the Ottoman Empire after WW 1. And sometimes someone else's problems today are solved by somebody else without us having to lift a finger.

Except it is our job because every nation in the world is obligated by international treaty to interfere in genocide and put a stop to them. That's why there was such a disgusting display by America during Rwanda as the administration referred to it as "genocide like acts" to avoid involving themselves. The United States also made many actual treaties which are designed around forging alliances with governments for the sake of providing military protection in exchange for things like economic benefits or trade or free port.

Everyone is technically legally obligated to intervene but the US military has many agreements to aid in the protection as well defense of groups. The people on the ground fighting against ISIS include many people who have been personal allies of the United States. The Kurdish region of Iraq, for example, was under US administration from the original Gulf War until Saddam's overthrow.

It's the most confusing part here for me as you'd think in America, Celestial Temple of Capitalism, we'd under the concept of a "deal is a deal." The world is a safer place for the role of treaties and agreements as well as promises to prevent certain acts from happening. You can just throw them all into the fire and say, "I don't have to because I don't want to" but if your word is worthless then why should anyone give a shit in return?

And those people we think were likely fighting for democracy and not just telling us what we wanted to hear, they might make excellent refugees here. Most Americans can't be bothered to drive to the polling station. However, there is a difference between offering support and "only death can keep us from your side." If your car breaks down and I give you a car, I have not adopted you. The Kurds we encouraged to overthrow Sadam, and they started to after we stopped our military campaign (sigh), IIRC, but if we got them into hot water it made sense to try to keep them from getting burned. If the Syrian rebels were already going to rebel and we just gave them arms and advice, that doesn't mean we have a continuing obligation.

As far as our obligations by treaty go:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in
time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.

Undertaking can mean any effort. Economic sanctions, sternly-worded speeches as the U.N., toilet-papering the Syrian embassy. The treaty does not outline what steps have to be taken, and the world at large has taken that to mean hand-wringing is just fine.

Also, and this is not a rhetorical question, but is an ethnic or religious group being targeted? The genocide treaty doesn't mention political groups; it was going to, but the U.S.S.R. objected and that language was taken out.

If the world does have an obligation, can we go in alphabetical order this time?

Also, just for the irony, and not an argument, but I have to appreciate that the thread started because Fuzzy said we were (as near as I can remember) "bombing the shit out of the Syrians."

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, Darth, it's a bit of a relief for the true motives to be shown instead of all the waffling about "integration" and "terrorist risks". This is fear of Muslims, plain and simple.

We don't need a violent overthrow by Christians in this country imposing the Christian equivalent of Shariah law because they are already in office. Just ask Vice President Mike "hang the gays" Pence, or the Rapist In Chief.

Terry Pratchett said that Wisdom is one of the few objects that appears larger from a distance. I think the same thing applies to sexism, homophobia, and extremism.

Fuzzy, is everything you say going to be just accusing people of motives you pull from your ass?

How is going from "Muslims on average are more prone to extremism and less tolerant" to "you are motivated by fear of muslims" an ass pull?

Let's go down the list.

For my motivation, I spoke of inhabitants of the Middle East and, secondarily, Muslims, when I could get no better data. I did not mention Islam in general, nor Muslims from other parts of the world.

If you know that Mike pence has been hanging gays or has said that he wants to hang gays, I'd love to hear it.

If you know of anything that substantiates accusations of rape against Trump, likewise.

If you have evidence that the Trump administration has been trying to push Christianity on anyone, also,likewise. The closest I can think of are blue laws, which are local, and have been with us long before the Cheeto in Chief was born, much less took office.

Finding people you want to hate and then assigning them motives to justify it, if that is what you are doing, may make you feel better about yourself... But it isn't a very effective way to relate to the real world. If doing actual good in the world the rest of us live in is important to you, you might want to take a step back once in a while and question your assumptions.

Okay then. Blanket fear of people from the Middle East. Better? It still seems to come from a very similar mindset in worldview.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sa ... ple-685759

Do efforts at legalizing discrimination against formerly protected classes in the name of Religious Freedom count? Or the Transgender military ban attempts? Or bans on immigrants/refugees from Muslim-dominated countries?

Blanket fear of people from the Middle East doesn't apply, either. Israel's fine. Turkey's fine. Jordanians are a pretty nifty bunch.

Did you read the Newsweek article you linked? This was Newsweek, not exactly a bastion of the far right, calling Trump's remark a joke.

Trump's ban of trans people from military service would count if he's said, "And these trans folks are an affront to God!" instead of citing medical costs and disruption. The travel bans were for terror hot spots, not a ban on all Muslims.

Do you honestly believe that the "medical costs" are the real reason, or do you define religious extremism as being explicit and brazen?

If it was based on terror hotspots, why WASN'T isreal included then? There's a lot of shit going down there last time I checked.

Yes, and I define religious extremism as being driven by religion. And extreme. Otherwise, "religious extremists" aren't doing it right, and, extremists or no, they should have more respect for the English language.

Did Trump ban gays from the military? No. Did Trump ban Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jedi from the military? No. I expect evidence to be solid, however, and not something easily explainable with rational justification.

A ban of Jedi would have had rational justification anyway, of course. It turns out their version of kryptonite is being attacked by several people with rifles.

Israel is, nowadays, anyway, generally a target of terrorism rather than a source of it. Instead of "terror hot spots," maybe I should have said, "Places lots of terrorists come from." By the way, those nations were chosen by Obama as "countries of concern," with lesser travel restrictions the Obama administration put into place.

You have better, right?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

He hasn't banned them, yet. Trans people, however, are generally not considered a protected class, so he has a lot more power and ability to mess them around.

Do you REALLY think the reason for the ban is Medical Expense? I have to understand your position on that before I can engage any further.

[Darth Wedgius]

He hasn't banned them, yet. Trans people, however, are generally not considered a protected class, so he has a lot more power and ability to mess them around.

Do you REALLY think the reason for the ban is Medical Expense? I have to understand your position on that before I can engage any further.

I believe that medical expenses and other practical concerns that may arise are a sufficient cause; I leave the REALLY REAL reason as something for telepaths. I also believe that if we lived in a theocracy, we'd know it. Theocracies don't have a record of being subtle; if you don't believe me, try Christian prosletyzing in Saudi Arabia.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

He hasn't banned them, yet. Trans people, however, are generally not considered a protected class, so he has a lot more power and ability to mess them around.

Do you REALLY think the reason for the ban is Medical Expense? I have to understand your position on that before I can engage any further.

I believe that medical expenses and other practical concerns that may arise are a sufficient cause; I leave the REALLY REAL reason as something for telepaths. I also believe that if we lived in a theocracy, we'd know it. Theocracies don't have a record of being subtle; if you don't believe me, try Christian prosletyzing in Saudi Arabia.

What about the reports from doctors saying it's not a big cost, and that we spend more on boner pills for military members than trans people? I personally think the motive is pretty transparent even if you aren't a mutant.

I am, however, forced to concede that the USA isn't a theocracy yet. I still see lots of efforts creeping in at the edges and lots of very powerful political figures trying to make it so.

[Darth Wedgius]

He hasn't banned them, yet. Trans people, however, are generally not considered a protected class, so he has a lot more power and ability to mess them around.

Do you REALLY think the reason for the ban is Medical Expense? I have to understand your position on that before I can engage any further.

I believe that medical expenses and other practical concerns that may arise are a sufficient cause; I leave the REALLY REAL reason as something for telepaths. I also believe that if we lived in a theocracy, we'd know it. Theocracies don't have a record of being subtle; if you don't believe me, try Christian prosletyzing in Saudi Arabia.

What about the reports from doctors saying it's not a big cost, and that we spend more on boner pills for military members than trans people? I personally think the motive is pretty transparent even if you aren't a mutant.

I'm going to be careful to the point of rambling -- apologies in advance.

Let's look at the actual text:

Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria — individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery — are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances.

So if Joe decides to be Josephine but requires no treatment, it doesn't apply. That could, of course, be just to give the appearance of being reasonable.

I should also point out that it isn't the total cost, but the cost vs. return on investment. In this case, roughly the cost per soldier/sailor/airman. Cialis run maybe $350 / 30 pills (I couldn't find any information that looked more solid -- try searching for ED meds online and the signal to noise ratio is like trying to hear a kitten with laryngitis whispering in a hurricane). The average couple has sex 8 to 12 times a month, say 10, so that's good for about three months.

Maybe a Marine would run through them faster. A Seabee would just build an appropriate partial exosuit.

Also, keep in mind that ED medication tends to be for older, more experienced personnel. I think those are more valuable than recruits, operationally.

For a TG person, hormone therapy runs around $1,500 annually, which isn't horrible compared to ED medication in and of itself - $1,400 vs $1,500. That's less than I expected, honestly.

Surgery is a lot more. $25,000 to $60,000 for the face, $5,000 to $10,000 for the boobs (M -> F), and over $30,000 for the reassignment surgery itself. So, from $60,000 to $100,000. If that's for a cross between Rambo and Samantha Carter, that's a deal. If you're not getting Samantha Rambo, well, you can probably get a lot more soldier for the buck.

That doesn't include any counseling, a laryngeal shave, voice therapy, or other niceties.

My source for the TG cost is https://www.teenvogue.com/story/transge ... rapy-costs . This was an article emphasizing how much it costs, so the figures might be in the upper end.

The whole post-surgical cost is pretty similar, and a lot lower than I thought it'd be. And I don't think I'd agree with Trump's reasoning on this for TG individuals who have already had the surgeries. That's doesn't mean I think he's doing it because he thinks God wants him to; he could be trying to please the conservative base, or he could just think TG people are icky. I don't think very highly of Trump's judgement, but I can't recall him bringing up God or bible verses a lot.

I am, however, forced to concede that the USA isn't a theocracy yet. I still see lots of efforts creeping in at the edges and lots of very powerful political figures trying to make it so.

Fair enough. We all have our own worries and things we're more likely to be on the look-out for. In the end, we're probably healthier as a society that way, covering each other's blind spots.