Regarding the WSJ, there's been a
very interesting internal war going on over there. The reporters have accused the WSJ chief editor of being soft on Trump and harsh on Clinton (aided by the fact the editor put out an opinion article praising Trump after the election), while the editor has responded by stating the WSJ is focusing on facts and non-Trump news.
No you didn't, your balance was completely out of whack. It's a moot point opening your door to a couple thousand Libyans or Iraqis after blowing up their country, that's gonna do the millions left behind fuck all, and would've been better solved by either not blowing up their countries to begin with, or staying and getting the job done with regime change. All I can say is thank God that Trump has abandoned the regime change policy because it clearly wasn't working and the Neocon and Neolibs had barely done fucking up Libya and Iraq before setting their eyes on Syria and Iran. What did you guys genuinely expect would happen by killing every opponent to jihadist groups
Well the US doesn't typically have a policy of inviting people here. They usually come on their own. In fact they've pretty much always come on their own. In fact it's usually the US slowing immigration down, restricting things, setting quotas, anglicizing people's name as they come in, etc. Of course that's immigration by sea, where the US has a lot more control. Immigration through Mexico is a more recent phenomenon, and even the Bipartisan immigration bill heavily focused the border security aspect. I don't think there is any support for
less border security, it's just that a wall is ineffective, expensive, and overall
stupid. In short, bad policy. But we're not really in the business of inviting people, no.
Isn't it a bit odd to open your door to the people whose country you've just wrecked. Don't exactly think they're gonna like you
Maybe we just need
extreme vetting? As opposed to the vetting we had before, of course. You know I still own a copy of the letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover ordering my grandfather expelled from the country due to his membership in the communist party of his home country (it didn't stick, incidentally, but that was due to... I'll just say my grandfather was a defector and other elements of the IC wanted him to stay).
But I dunno 'bout you guys, imo genocide is one of those things I would seem unacceptable from a country. Like, it's one of the things where invasion seems inherently justifiable. Difficult, and not preferable to other means of ending atrocities, but certainly justifiable.
Well legally (as opposed to morally) there is not only a justification, but a responsibility. All signatories to the UN convention on Genocide in 1948 agree to "punish and prevent" genocide, and to take such action as must be necessary.
Incidentally, reading the Wikipedia article had an amusing tidbit:
Prior to its ratification of the convention, the United States Senate was treated to a speech by Senator William Proxmire in favor of this treaty every day that the Senate was in session between 1967 and 1986.