It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes. He is some hero, isn't he...
=))
.....again.
This time it's ex-president Obama who receives Trump's blame for 'inspiring' him to initiate this newest executive order to ban people from 7 mostly Muslim nations, including Iran:
http://nos.nl/artikel/2155678-trump-vergelijkt-inreisverbod-met-maatregel-van-obama.html
And, sadly, today another terrorist attack, but now in Quebec, Canada. Curious how Trump will respond to this particular terrorist attack:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/index.html
----
Regarding pussygate: I'm not condoning it. However, he did prove he was tough in being able to weather that scandal (which was caused by comments on a hot mic from 11 years ago being made public). I wouldn't have been able to do it.
----
Regarding the Executive Order: as I said, I don't believe it's unconstitutional and I don't believe it's against the Geneva Conventions (since there are exceptions for refugees under certain extenuating circumstances even while the ban exists). This is a temporary security freeze until they get the process clarified and tightened up (or, as in Mr. Trump's language from last year: "until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.!"). I agree with Bob Corker that it was very poorly implemented however.
Bob Gates, former Defense Secretary under both the Bush and Obama Administration said yesterday that
"Any effort to strengthen national security to improve the vetting process, I think that's all perfectly reasonable and totally legitimate," Gates told ABC's Martha Raddatz on Sunday's This Week. "In fact, we would expect that of the president."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/robert-gates-trump-travel-ban-reasonable/2017/01/29/id/770939/
----
@bigladiesman indeed, Saudi Arabia is indirectly the #1 sponsor of Islamic terrorism. I've always believed that the Obama Administration's rapprochement with Iran (over the nuclear deal) was to try and reduce dependency on Saudi oil. In fact, US/Saudi relations deteriorated under the prior Administration, because Saudi Arabia (along with Israel) were both not in favour of that nuclear deal. I hope President Trump keeps that deal in place, and also that he doesn't give into pressure from Mr. Netanyahu to scrap it. The deal is not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
I believe this order is not unconstitutional, unless it can be shown that there is a religious test being exercised. Challenges on that basis are likely to fail.
There are other arguments which can be made regarding whether it should have been done, whether it facilitates or impedes security or not, whether it should have been rolled out over time, whether it should have received Congressional input etc. etc. However, the argument that it is a 'muslim ban' is not accurate, at least based on the actual 'order', which I have read fully.
Well, as I said, my thoughts and opinions about Trump are in the line of @Jobo's and @Gustav_Graves' so my personal hopes of him making wise decisions are slim to say the least. It's just that I try to remain neutral: It isn't my everyday world, so how can I formulate a correct opinion? It's hard to remain diplomatic but it can be done.
The interesting thing about such stats are they are all fine and good until a mass terror attack occurs on US soil (with a lorry/truck, or at a place of worship, at a nightclub, or even at an airport - all of which have taken place in Europe/Turkey last year). Nobody will look at such stats then, because such events are 'high impact'.
We all know that more people die in traffic accidents than airplane crashes, but it's the latter that we remember.
Moreover, the President of the United States is not responsible for deaths on account of lawnmowers, lightning, falling out of bed or buses,
cracked.com/personal-experiences-2448-these-soldiers-fought-u.s.-trump-just-banned-them.html
If Trump is trying to set himself up as the next De Gaulle, he's on the right track. Except that betraying the Harkis was the worst thing that he did.
I just want to clarify something which may be misunderstood: The ban is temporary. It affects countries that are basically on a current 'watch list' as identified by the previous Administration and Congress as being 'high risk' when it comes to granting access and visas. The previous Administration in fact encouraged stronger vetting from these specific countries. Many are in a state of chaos, unstable or ruled by warlords, and in the case of Iran there is no way of cooperating on terrorism because, among other things, they fund Hezbollah which is classified as a terrorist organization as far as the US is concerned. Moreover, they have a different point of view regarding Middle East security compared to US foreign policy establishment views.
Within 90 days, new vetting procedures should be in place which can result in a removal of the ban. If Homeland Security, State and FBI cannot get the necessary assurance on vetting of citizens from particular countries, then the ban will apparently stay in place until such assurance can be obtained. However, exceptions will be made.
Therefore, I don't think that the ban of Iranian immigrants has anything to do with an actual fear on terrorism but should signal Israel that they have changed their foreign strategy again in the Middle East. I just wonder where this will lead to? Actually there has been some diplomatic development in Iran and Rohani is a rather moderate president. The new law is a complete destruction of the slowly developing relations between the two countries.
Everyone knows that there will never be any military solution in the Middle East. There need to be some kind of cooperation including America, Iran and Israel.
The other question is, does the danger of terrorsim rather apply to immigrants or those who already live in the country. It could be that the new ban will motivate radical islamists already living in the US to commit terroristic attacks in the US.
They chose for these bastards when they tossed out the Shah and family & CIA. So who is the US to judge?
I was honestly not aware of this rule, and I suspect that is the case with the other ´guilty´ members as well... I will oblige from now on. I´ve said what I wanted to say.
That's what scares me though. Every Trumpite doesn't seem to be interested in what goes on on the other side. Whereas I am interested in what goes on in here. Because I still think there's a good lesson to learn from what's happening in here. But that also goes the other way around.
The thing that worries me especially is Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon. I mean, if you say things like this:
I mean, if you actually believe such things, if you say these things, then I think it's good to discuss such views.
No worries, I didn´t :) And I understand the reasoning
@DarthDimi, I do agree that the best use of two threads, is to keep them separate. People have a choice to write pro Trump here or anti Trump on @chrisisall's thread. People in the middle - go for it! ;)
So if that is the rule we go by, that is fine with me. But it was simply not clear up until right now. Dimi.
I have no problems with people coming along to critically discuss issues from the other perspective. As I said in my opening preamble, I welcome a healthy debate and we've been able to have that with some users (such as @GBF, @bigladiesman, @SaintMark, @Gustav_Graves, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs and others) who may have a different viewpoint as we've gone along. That's what the thread is for.
Just respect the Trump side's opinions & discuss respectfully, as there is another thread devoted to the constant negatives after all. There's only been a couple of bad apples who have an an agenda, and most know who they are. It's plain to see.
I'm afraid the evidence of the Brexit campaign (which Leave won through lies and distortion) suggest a Trump could do very well in the UK.
The U.S. Constitution delineates three branches of government, legislative branch(Congress -House&Senate) Executive and Judicial.
They act as check and balance on each other.
Each has delineated powers. Congress has big power of the purse. Legislative and Executive branch often have to negotiate to get things done. Executive Branch has much veto power.
Judicial branch has power to overrule Executive branch on constitutional grounds.
Health Care reform strikes me as a joint effort on behalf of both the legislative and and executive branches.
Elections are held every two years.
All branches operate within their respective areas of constitutional competence.
As for what can get done, it would have to be assessed on a case-by-case.
Much comes down to political will, which is influenced by any number of factors.
Ditto. I thought we as a society had a need to communicate with each other. Try to get others to understand one's own point of view & so on. I don't think I've ever been insulting to another member here -- and I'd appreciate hearing from from the mods off-thread if my opinion on this matter is inaccurate.