Hmmm... I never read that anywhere but it does make some sense especially when you consider that Churchill allowed cities to be bombed (think it was specifically Coventry IIRC) in order to ensure the Germans had no reason to believe their code was broken (Ultra/Enigma). As far as "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" - well - Yamamoto was a smart cookie and I doubt an invasion of the USA mainland was even considered given the thousands upon thousand of miles a logistics lifeline would have to travel. Invading China was one thing but invading the USA thousands of miles away was quite another...only my opinion, of course. Yet, many times generals can not do what they wish and just like a private must follow orders. "There are some essential differences, between the case of Japan, and the countries that are presently proscribed in Trump's EO." Yes, there are differences but similarities also. In this case, a major similarity is the use of an Executive Order to 'safeguard the nation.' Plus, the fact that past presidents have used Executive Orders in the same regard and purpose. Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone can believe a nation must allow immigration. And, not only allow it but overlook the possibility those immigrating might mean harm to the nation and its citizens. Yet, they still demand it. I just can't understand this. It's like they hate the US and its people and want to see us harmed. I hope the President extends the order and bans all Muslim countries or shuts down immigration entirely until they get a handle on it. Anyway... I, for one, will be very interested in seeing how this tale is argued and defended here on this forum and, more importantly, in the courts. Frankly, I don't think they have a leg to stand on - here or in the courts..."it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing..."(Macbeth/Shakespeare)
Ahh, Chello is acting like his opinion counts in America, you're not a citizen silly wallaby, so hush up....
True - but much like the other commonwealth countries....we get sucked into funding and fighting with you in your wars.
Not to mention the fact that what "America" does has a significant impact on the rest of the world, from being the lynch pin of the United Nations, to funding terrorism abroad, deposing dictators and installing our own puppet regimes, and generally just being the world's biggest bully disguised as policemen, in league with the Vatican and the British Empire, this country has become a kinder, friendlier yet far more sinister and deadly version of the Fourth Reich. So, yeah...you "foreigners" have every damn right to complain as far as I see it.
Maybe, but it's heads I win, tails you lose. If we act internationally, we're selfish. If we don't act, we're selfish. There's no win for us in the minds of a very liberal international community. In this way, we haven't had a predictable international policy as it waivers with whatever passes for morality at the moment. I think announcing we're doing whatever is in the best interest of our citizens is at least a policy standard. Thus, as a libertarian who has never been fond of Trump, I think he's drawing an important line in the sand. Let them call us mean, nasty and evil. They don't want us to be international policemen, well, we shouldn't be international nannies, either. We'll do whatever is in the best interest of our nation, and our allies; in that order. At least it's predictable standard that you can hold the government to account for.
Dammit @Seepalaces now you're making too much sense and that will never do! Ensure you throw a bit of nonsense, gibberish and double-speak in there. Do what is best for our nation?!?!? Nonsense!
