The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a response to the September 11th attacks, but it has been criticized because Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. It was pretty much taking advantage of the ignorance of Americans to go to war, and the Bush Administration was apparently planning an invasion of Iraq as soon as Bush got into office. September 11th was just the excuse they needed to get away with it at the time.

I'm sure no images exist of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians, women and children, laying dead all over the place at the hands of American forces. HAHAHAHA. Give me a break. It was not a good deed being done. It was politics. It was evil. And it was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Fun side fact: Did you know the Obama Iran treaty (that Trump "broke") where he gave them two billion USD? Turns out it was a complete farce of a treaty because it intentionally had no requirement for UN inspectors to inspect military facilities and in the words of ex-CIA veteran Mike Baker "dis-armerment treaties are predicated on verification, and without that, they're meaningless."

and that's verified by (total #fakenews alt-right Russian shill) ... Harvard:

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/are-iranian-military-bases-limits-inspection

I have heard this for many years now, and it was a lie back then, and it is a lie now. The invasion at the time was due to Saddam violating restrictions put on him after the initial war which were intended to keep him away from Kuwait. He continuously violated the UN imposed sanctions and restrictions. THAT is why he was attacked. No other reason. It had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with Sept 11th.

BuMP

Yesterday I brought a can of beer to work to put in my mini-fridge on my desk. I figured it would be a nice treat to have during lunch one of these days. I mentioned it to my wife today and she blew a gasket. It's so foreign to her. She figured I did it because I'm an alcoholic. But ever since I started vaping marijuana I drink less. I'm usually in bed by 10 PM because Indica puts you to sleep, and I intentionally use it to put me in the mood to sleep. In any case, of course in her field drinking a beer during lunch would be unheard of. But in software development it seems pretty common. Thoughts?

{"name":"Build+the+dang+wall+already+leeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffff_c826b4_6927204.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/9370fe5ff1eb7ff669fb35ef37bb082c.jpg","w":1200,"h":1433,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/9370fe5ff1eb7ff669fb35ef37bb082c"}

Keep your dang polar vortexes on the other side of the border please and no thank you very much -15F this morning...

EDIT
Last time I heard about a polar vortex was in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, where the next ice age swooped in over the period of a few days.

Rent is for keeping poor people poor. (And I still rent currently.)

If you know you're living in an area for a long time, buy a plot of land, buy a house, buy anything. Money you put it stays in. As opposed to renting which just magically disappears every month.

Since most immigrants come by air, what we really need is a ceiling.

Heard that one on FB.

I'll take my side with Democrats.

I don't even know if a wall matters. It's such a B.S. argument with emotions and the focus of tribalism. Would it actually help anything? Objectively? I don't know. Because we've had a pretty clear lack of actual experts weighing in. All that matters is each party's tribe getting a "moral victory." Democrats "Defeat the wall and ride it all the way to the 2020 election" (their actual political strategy--it has nothing to do with kids or immigrants.) Or Republicans get the wall and do the equivalent. It's the exact same thing with gun control. No one cares about actual lives being saved and will omit any objective facts that prevent them from getting a "moral" (political) victory that basically accomplishes nothing either way except strengthen that party's political power. Again, nothing to do with helping people. "Ban assault weapons" (*) while 99% of gun crime is with pistols, lulullulul.

(*) a made up term for guns with magical death features like... a barrel shroud... which is simply a cover around the barrel so you don't burn your hand. lulululullulullu

{"name":"meftV0q.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/d\/3df126efb81602c9501026cd4cb42f7c.gif","w":800,"h":411,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/d\/3df126efb81602c9501026cd4cb42f7c"}

Think about the insanity of putting ACTUAL FEDERAL LEGISLATION with a group of legal aids and political minds, and passing it through the government, representing millions of dollars of salaries yielding a piece of paper that will be enforced by tens-of-thousands of officers... that accomplishes the following: "No piece of metal over a barrel so you can burn your hands." Does anyone in the entire chain of authority have a brain?

And I'm not saying Democrats are only the ones doing this but HOLY GOD IN HEAVEN do you need any more datapoints to realize politicians represent average Americans in that they're borderline retarded? These are the people that choose how we're supposed to live. People who don't even know what's in their legislation, or if they do, have no logical basis for it. I'm honestly having trouble coming up for an example in the way of "this would be like if they banned X for Y" because the original, actual effect, is so batsh-t absurd I cannot even make a more impactful hypothetical analogy.

That's often against local code, as it tends to be an eyesore. There are simpler ways to save money on rent. (e.g., Rent out somebody's spare room.)

It's called a cost benefit analysis. How much will it prevent vs how much will it cost. As an extreme example, saving 1 human life by spending 10 trillion on a wall is unfortunately not worth it. How inhumane! But really, it comes down to spending 10 trillion on other things would save more lives.

Of course Republicans (mostly Trump) and almost all Democrats have made a wall a symbolic issue that they are dug into. There probably are sections that could use additional walls (barriers, fencing, these are all the same things...). The issue is that Trump has made such ridiculous claims from early on, including quite plainly stating that Mexico would make a "one time payment" to directly pay for the wall that would literally span from coast to coast, and often insinuated without any proof that there is a disproportionate amount of evil people flooding into our borders. Now if a politician supports any construction of new walls, it has become a symbol of supporting all of that nonsense.

I read a little news article the other day about a young child falling from the (already existing) wall when illegally entering the US with her family. What great tools did the smugglers use when assisting the family? A ladder.

The goal of a wall should be to prevent easy mass transit of drugs and or people across the border. It is not to prevent single individuals from crossing over. Instead, we should encourage them to cross at legal ports. Treat people who are seeking asylum with respect. Give people who are looking for seasonal work a simple way to go back and forth and pay their taxes, etc.

The reality is that the existing wall is already extremely effective. Most ground trafficking comes over the road in legal ports by drug mules, etc. But are there areas that could use additional fencing? Probably. But the ideas that a) there is a huge "crisis" and b) a great wall from sea to shining sea would significantly improve our security is ludicrous.

Your analysis isn't particularly accurate. The wall is expected to be in the ballpark of $25 billion. Democrats muse about pushing big spending plans that actually are measured in tens of billions of dollars (Medicare for all, "green new deal", etc). Border patrol agents, the people who actually do have to prevent illegal immigration, don't believe the wall to be worthless. Many Democrats don't actually believe it's worthless either, they are just being partisan. And since it seems you aren't fully aware about what has actually been proposed, the wall is meant to be used in combination with people and tech. The tech improves detection, the barrier slows entry and the people apprehend illegal border crossers. Missing or lacking in any of those elements severely limits the ability to secure the border.

When caravans of hundreds/thousands of people are advancing towards the border, it's disingenuous to say the wall is only meant to stop one person at a time. The wall would effectively funnel people towards the parts of the border that didn't have a barrier, where other means can be used to provide security.

Economic migrants are not actually asylum seekers, nor are most of requests for asylum valid (according to DoJ). You admit that the existing portion of wall is effective, but seem to claim more wall would not add increased effectiveness. That doesn't follow.

As has been my long time stance, green cards and visas should be dispensed generously, to people who are able to support themselves and not become a public burden. And when the temporary status is ended, they should return to their home countries.