@dfarrah
No rain and crop failure year after year made it impossile for people to stay where they and their people lived for many hundreds of years; yet global warming didn't originate there.

#7 what the US has done with its military.

But I do think there may be solutions that may work to keep people closer to their homes. I think we should rebuild Syria and rebuild wherever we have destroyed.

@Fishtroller 02 It will be forgotten.

detained the children refugees by the tens of thousands and that Hillary Clinton called for their mass deportation to 'teach their parents a lesson'. Well, lessons were taught all right... fatal lessons for those we sent back.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/12/obama-immigration-deport...

I'm not pointing this out to defend Trump, but the hypocrisy of Democrats protesting his moves is quite apparent and demonstrates that this is an issue of guilt on both sides of the aisle.

@riverlover
They also came looking for better farmland than they had (Scandinavia is rocky, mountainous and cold), and they came looking for trade, and they came exploring to see what lay behind the next wave.

They must have been delighted to find Iceland even though climate-wise it was not much improvement over Scandinavia - there wasn't anybody else (still) living there and they could have it all to themselves without fighting for it. (But, being quarrelsome people, they pretty soon were fighting each other.)

They fought the Saxons in northeastern England to a standstill, they grabbed off large portions of the Scottish Highlands and Islands, and they wore down the King of France until he gave them a whole county to settle down in and leave him alone. They found a sizable population of Slavs that "needed organization" in the Norse manner and proceeded to impose it upon them - then ran trade routes down the Russian rivers to Byzantium and points beyond. They also got toeholds in Ireland and elsewhere. (In some parts of Europe they were very serious competition for the local girls, because they were cleaner and better-dressed than the local young men, not to mention being "exotic foreigners".)

About the only people they didn't impress were the Arabs, who were just as fierce warriors, just as competitive traders, and much more obsessed with cleanliness - a bath once a week didn't cut it with them, when their religion required washing (hands, at least) five times a day.

The short of it is, you might find "Viking input" from absolutely anywhere in the British Isles and from large stretches of coastal Europe as well.

I am Caucasian! No surprises (lol) except for a scattering of Jewish, probably came from someone long ago in southern Europe.
But Viking product I find stunning. Rape and pillage product?

Doing a sleep vaca today. Something lacking recently. This is my afternoon wake break.

@Not Henry Kissinger Interesting point. I had not thought about this and am glad you pointed it out.
I am not sure Trump thought about your idea himself, but there may be some people who suggested this policy to him for this reason.

Maybe we should start with a movement to allow widows with young children to to come here while the details about taking in other refugees are being considered? Perhaps we could also admit a few teenage girls who have been orphaned as well. Bringing in some non-threatening refugees might break down some of the public resistance. I wonder where we could get some good photos and bios of refugee women and girls who need to have a safe place to live. Focusing on a few sympathetic individuals would put faces on the refugee situation. We could call it 'fast-track vulnerable refugee status' or something.

TPTB may not want refugees telling us that the 'moderate rebels' the US has been supporting are really a bunch of violent thugs. This might be another reason they want to keep refugees out.

and certainly don't support either the idea or its implementation, there may be another deeper consideration here that most won't consider.

Think about it: without the ban, just who would be the refugees we'd allow in? Of course there would be a vetting process, and, considering the predilections of our security services, that process would almost certainly give preferential access to the regime change insurgents we have been supporting in the seven countries where the ban has been implemented.

What I think may be going on here is that Trump is afraid McCain and his neocon cronies will use the refugee crisis as an excuse to extract their al queada buddies from Putin's meat grinder, giving them a safe haven in the US and preserving a rump of mercenary cadres they can use for future covert missions. (IIRC McCain once talked about repatriating 50,000 'refugees', which is probably close to the number of foreign fighters (cum families) we are sponsoring.

It is also significant to note that the ban includes the seven countries where our previous regime change efforts have been most active, (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen) but does not include countries like Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia -countries where terrorism is certainly prevalent but have not been subjected to the same degree of overt US meddling (mainly because the governments of those countries have done a better job of purging foreign backed dissidents.)

In this light, the exclusion of Green Card holders makes sense because those fighter would be the ones with the deepest connections to the US government, and most likely the ones who've already received domestic training in regime change insurgency tactics.

Assuming my theory is correct, it would be nice if Trump had been forthcoming about the true reasons for the ban rather than hide his strategic intentions behind nativist demagoguery, but as he fights his rearguard action/purge of neocon elements within and without the borders of the US, he appears to want to keep a fairly low profile on at least this one issue.

Comments, criticisms, and outright scorn are all welcome.

@Not Henry Kissinger Oh shit. Now that's an ugly thought. I doubt Trump had it himself. anybody around him smart enough to have it?

and certainly don't support either the idea or its implementation, there may be another deeper consideration here that most won't consider.

Think about it: without the ban, just who would be the refugees we'd allow in? Of course there would be a vetting process, and, considering the predilections of our security services, that process would almost certainly give preferential access to the regime change insurgents we have been supporting in the seven countries where the ban has been implemented.

What I think may be going on here is that Trump is afraid McCain and his neocon cronies will use the refugee crisis as an excuse to extract their al queada buddies from Putin's meat grinder, giving them a safe haven in the US and preserving a rump of mercenary cadres they can use for future covert missions. (IIRC McCain once talked about repatriating 50,000 'refugees', which is probably close to the number of foreign fighters (cum families) we are sponsoring.

It is also significant to note that the ban includes the seven countries where our previous regime change efforts have been most active, (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen) but does not include countries like Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia -countries where terrorism is certainly prevalent but have not been subjected to the same degree of overt US meddling (mainly because the governments of those countries have done a better job of purging foreign backed dissidents.)

In this light, the exclusion of Green Card holders makes sense because those fighter would be the ones with the deepest connections to the US government, and most likely the ones who've already received domestic training in regime change insurgency tactics.

Assuming my theory is correct, it would be nice if Trump had been forthcoming about the true reasons for the ban rather than hide his strategic intentions behind nativist demagoguery, but as he fights his rearguard action/purge of neocon elements within and without the borders of the US, he appears to want to keep a fairly low profile on at least this one issue.

Comments, criticisms, and outright scorn are all welcome.

@Jamawani I'm not surprised. Things were pretty horrific even before Trump.

We must push back and forgo pleasantries.

Kudos to Nydia Velazquez - who spoke out bravely today.
Con acento puertorriqueño, ella habló la verdad a América.