Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Folly]

Chemical attack on civilians happened today in Syria.

[redwallzyl]

Chemical attack on civilians happened today in Syria.

Surprise levels 0/100

[hector13]

Trump’s telegraphed bombing is just as effective as Obama’s “this is our red line! Well, maybe...”

[Max™]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43686271

Well, at least Trump is probably there and hopefully dies horribly in the fire...

...wait, he's ACTUALLY IN D.C. FOR A CHANGE?

FUCK!

[PTTG??]

Right now, all I can think is that we need to provide pure humanitarian evacuation. Just say, "If you're a decent human being, we're sending a ship to help you. Please, come join us. We have a dozen midwestern states with temperate climates, fertile ground, and vast quantities of unused land. Just leave your weapons behind." If the entire population took us up on the offer, that's 18 million people -- about 5% of the US' current population. If we spread them evenly around the country, that'd be one free city of 450k per state. Settling them would be a huge boom for virtually every industry, from construction on up, because that's a sudden influx of consumer spending. It's also inflation-free, because the people themselves would be a massive lift to the US' economic productivity cap -- the people themselves are providing the economic value that is being spent for them. What state would say no to a free Sacramento, or Atlanta, or Miami?

We'd need to employ countless current citizens as well, of course. Language teaching (actually quite easy, if you aren't hindered by school schedules; just get people to practice every day), job training, computer literacy... the need for good-paying jobs would be exceptional. Of course, they would need to be naturalized, but the President can provide amnesty just like the past two Republicans did. It'd save a lot of time and money that way.

Here's the best part: after we do that, we just... leave Syria. Assad and the rebels are both pieces of shit. Let them kill each other over crater-spattered fields of salty sand. Heck, we'll sell them rockets and mortars, all lightly used. Can you imagine the cities we could build with the wealth we've locked up in drones and artillery and mines and ships and bombs and planes?

The best part of it all is, it's a by-partisan solution, from the American perspective. Obviously the Democrats will back it because they are progressives, and seek diplomatic solutions. The Republicans will like it because it's pro-life AND good for the budget. Win-win.

[Trekkin]

Building 18 million people's worth of city is not free, and it's not free on a scale that cannot be paid off with optimistic expectations of future productivity.

Don't ask what state would say no to a free Miami. Ask instead what entity would offer a loan big enough to build Miami and keep it functioning while we process and educate the entire population.

[PTTG??]

You're thinking too small. The government can print its own money. So long as there is excess capacity for productivity (i.e., un- and under-employment), there is no notable inflation. But all that is in the "how" category. The real question is, should we do so? I think the answer is, whatever the cost, yes. Human beings deserve to live in safe and comfortable places. They deserve the ability to make the most out of their lives.

It is clear that the Syrian government cannot provide that, and the Rebels don't want to do it either. We have two decades of experience showing that a military invasion cannot provide anything like that.

By all means, if you have an alternate solution that is more efficient, go ahead.

[Trekkin]

But all that is in the "how" category. The real question is, should we do so? I think the answer is, whatever the cost, yes.

A similar sentiment has been behind every five-year plan, every Great Leap Forward, and every Nigerian Cement Block (or whatever they're calling that mess at the Apapa docks in 1975.): details are for other people, and what matters is that we act boldly with the strength of our convictions.

If you want to move eighteen million living people, you start with how, because the "how" category contains questions like "how do we make sure they get where we think they're going to be so that the titanic quantities of resources they require reach them before they sicken or starve?" Forget what people "deserve", at least for defining the initial solution space; that's not real and it never has been. Not one molecule of it to be found, etc. When you enumerate the physical requirements of what you want, then we can look at costs and efficiency and practicability.

[sluissa]

You're thinking too small. The government can print its own money. So long as there is excess capacity for productivity (i.e., un- and under-employment), there is no notable inflation. But all that is in the "how" category. The real question is, should we do so? I think the answer is, whatever the cost, yes. Human beings deserve to live in safe and comfortable places. They deserve the ability to make the most out of their lives.

It is clear that the Syrian government cannot provide that, and the Rebels don't want to do it either. We have two decades of experience showing that a military invasion cannot provide anything like that.

By all means, if you have an alternate solution that is more efficient, go ahead.

Do not be asking for efficient solutions. For you would not like where that leads.

You vastly overestimate the ability of the already fragile US economy to simply accept drowning in a new influx of people unsuited to contributing. You overestimate the ability for individual state governments to organize and provide for half a million people each which they were not planning for. You also overestimate the ease at which you can move 18 million people across a fucking ocean.

You're talking about something bigger than the scale of the entire ~240 year slave trade from Africa to the New World. Estimates put that at about 12 million across hundreds of years. Of which only 10 million or so survived the journey.

Even assuming you can manage the logistics, you're talking about something comparable to the entirety of US immigration for the two highest decades on record. 1900s had something like 30 million immigrants. 1991-2000 had something like 10-11 million immigrants. Guess what happened after each of those eras? There was massive social push back against immigrants.

Finally, as someone living in a more rural area, I can attest to how difficult it is to find a job, ANY job, in one of those rural places you say has plenty of opportunity in their "fertile land." Hint: Fertile land doesn't mean much anymore, given that everything is fertilized artificially anyway and even when it does, it only matters to massive corporations as they're typically the ones running the farms with their machinery which might as well be automated completely at this point. And yet you want to just dump a half million people onto mine and similar rural areas and just expect things to be easy to work out.

I'm only hoping you're trolling or forgot a sarcasm tag somewhere.

[scriver]

Right now, all I can think is that we need to provide pure humanitarian evacuation. Just say, "If you're a decent human being, we're sending a ship to help you. Please, come join us. We have a dozen midwestern states with temperate climates, fertile ground, and vast quantities of unused land. Just leave your weapons behind." If the entire population took us up on the offer, that's 18 million people -- about 5% of the US' current population. If we spread them evenly around the country, that'd be one free city of 450k per state. Settling them would be a huge boom for virtually every industry, from construction on up, because that's a sudden influx of consumer spending. It's also inflation-free, because the people themselves would be a massive lift to the US' economic productivity cap -- the people themselves are providing the economic value that is being spent for them. What state would say no to a free Sacramento, or Atlanta, or Miami?

We'd need to employ countless current citizens as well, of course. Language teaching (actually quite easy, if you aren't hindered by school schedules; just get people to practice every day), job training, computer literacy... the need for good-paying jobs would be exceptional. Of course, they would need to be naturalized, but the President can provide amnesty just like the past two Republicans did. It'd save a lot of time and money that way.

Here's the best part: after we do that, we just... leave Syria. Assad and the rebels are both pieces of shit. Let them kill each other over crater-spattered fields of salty sand. Heck, we'll sell them rockets and mortars, all lightly used. Can you imagine the cities we could build with the wealth we've locked up in drones and artillery and mines and ships and bombs and planes?

The best part of it all is, it's a by-partisan solution, from the American perspective. Obviously the Democrats will back it because they are progressives, and seek diplomatic solutions. The Republicans will like it because it's pro-life AND good for the budget. Win-win.

Oh my sweet summer child

[redwallzyl]

While accepting the entire population of Syria would be a bit insane it would have likely advantaged us to have taken the first waves of Syrian migrants quickly. That wave would be primarily middle class and still in possession of some capital and would have many advanced skills. In other words take all the brain drain for ourselves.

[Kagus]

Handled appropriately, it'd be amazing. ...But I have no idea of how it could be handled appropriately.

And nah, republicans wouldn't be for something like that... It's the eternal dilemma: either they take our jobs or they mooch off of social security, thus taking our taxes. Pro-life also only applies to the unborn. You've got a right to start life, but nothing says you've got a right to keep living.


Instead of thinking about mass immigration in terms of Civilization, think about it in terms of Banished. There's a lot involved with trying to house and support that many people without it ending up like the Kowloon walled city, at best.


Though I seem to recall at least a few European countries having a pretty significant economic boost from immigration in recent years, despite all the grumbling and conservative posturing. But can't really say that I've got my finger on the pulse of that subject... Or any other, for that matter.

[redwallzyl]

Yah, I would not trust Republicans with a complex policy. They would fuck it up for sure. The US could likely fit a few million people in fine if spread right. The building industry would love it and that is where the do this before they are totally drained of capital comes in as well giving some breathing room. Also I hate with a passion the Republican ranting against immigrants and welfare bullshit. Its proven as the best way to assimilate people. Allowing them to focus on learning the language and getting set up and not slipping into poverty. They cant ever think outside their zero sum ethnic clash to see their whole approach is idiotic.

[martinuzz]

So Trump said that  Beast Assad will pay a high price for the chemical attack on civilians.
I guess we can expect another cruise missile strike.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's the sort of thing he'd say either way, but it's a lot more concerning now that Bolton is on staff.