There's a vast gulf between "having" superior firepower as a deterrent and "using" superior firepower for mass murder, particularly against elementary schools and desalination plants. The latter is war, at its worst.
Sure, but it's not equating the states of war and peace, but asserting that war is a method for achieving peace, presumably when everyone on the other side is incapable or undesirous of attacking or threatening same.
What I mean is that it makes no sense to say you're fighting a war to achieve peace if you're the one who started the war, breaking the peace that existed before then.
If peace is your goal, then the status quo was already in line with your goal. Starting the war contradicts your stated goal of peace.
There are at least two ways to view this in the "war for peace" proponents' favor, I think:
First, it could be that you believe that war is already happening. In this case, Israel and other opponents of Iran might think that the status quo was a shadow war, and they are just continuing the war in a way that is to their advantage.
Second, even if peace technically exists at the moment, one side might believe that the other is moving toward war, and if allowed to complete preparations, will be significantly harder to overcome when they start a war in the future. In that case, preemptive war might be thought to engender peace in the medium or long term.
We don't have to agree with these casus bellis to acknowledge that they are at least superficially reasonable justifications, presuming they fit the facts.
You’re okay taking a massive economic hit, removing large amounts of population from the country? Who cares if they’re “illegal” or not? Why does it matter if they’re less criminal than US born, and harder working? And don’t give me, they use services, I work for Medicaid and they don’t get it. So why? You just dislike brown people?
What economic hit? Yes, they're illegal and we don't care how hard working they are, they can go be hard working in their own countries. The US is not a soup kitchen. If you want to come here, go through the official process. If they bring as much to the table as you claim, they'll have no problem getting a visa.
> If they bring as much to the table as you claim, they'll have no problem getting a visa.
Nah, you see the fundamental problem here is that (based on Biden's estimate), there's about 10 million or so, and that 60–70% of all U.S. agricultural workers and 15–20% of construction workers are such people.
They do this at a pay rate that is both higher than they'd get in their home country, and lower than any American would work for. This itself, being too cheap, precludes them getting a work visa: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/programs/h-2a
The dollar has fallen pretty drastically against other major currencies since the start of the year. That is, this isn't loss of value in the rather abstract monetary inflation sense but "dollar is down 15% relative to euro in under a year" (that's a pretty rapid shift in such a short timeline).
A decline in the dollar absolutely does impact most wage earning Americans. Those wages are being paid in dollars! A decline in the dollar on that scale will tend to lead to higher price inflation.
And you support this being done with no due process, meaning we just have to trust Trump and his cronies when they claim someone is in the US illegally?
If there is anything Trump is doing popularly, it’s aggressively removing illegal immigrants from our streets. To the extent there is tolerance for Fourth Amendment violations, it may be from historic indifference to enforcing our immigration laws.
100% And most don't realize that many EU nations have tighter restrictions on immigration now than the US after seeing what effect lax policies have on their nation.
