Are you for or against the war?

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » July 11, 2005, 1:04 am

I'm currently writing an arguementative paper for an English summer school course I am taking. The topic I chose was the war on "terrorism". Surprisingly enough I was the only one to chose this. I was wondering what your thoughts on the war are and if you are currently still supportive of the war or think it was a mistake.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » July 11, 2005, 1:07 am

who wouldn't support a war on terrorism?...don't confuse the war on terrorism with the fighting going on in iraq

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 11, 2005, 1:11 am

Yeah, I can see a wider spread of views based on which "war" you choose. I can see a lot more support for the "war on terrorism" than the "war in Iraq."

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » July 11, 2005, 1:25 am

yeah that's why i said the war on "terrorism" this paper is full of facts about both the removal of terrorists and the regime change... I wanted to have a double poll one for each

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 11, 2005, 2:08 am

Ok I am unclear as to whether this is a poll of whether you support a "war on terror" that is aimed at realistically dealing with the trials we face or whether we support that dickhead Bush's poorly articulated lies and misconcieved notions that provoke terror thus far?

I voted no in case it was the latter.

If it was the former, change it to a yes.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 11, 2005, 2:25 am

Nick wrote:Ok I am unclear as to whether this is a poll of whether you support a "war on terror" that is aimed at realistically dealing with the trials we face or whether we support that dickhead Bush's sly and misconvieved attempt thus far?

I voted no in case it was the latter.

If it was the former, change it to a yes.

It feels good to place all the blame on a single person doesn't it? How about admitting that you are a part of the problem as much as anyone else?

Going around saying, "War man...it sucks" doesn't really help things now does it? Go to 10 peace rallys a year if it makes you feel better...that's sort of like drinking a diet coke to go along with your 4000 calorie meal if you're fat. Thank god for that diet coke! If you're not willing to knock the western world back to third world status, then don't bother with the "Give Peace A Chance" plan.

Be more of a realist. Understand how the world economy as a whole functions. Understand the implications of abrupt changes. It's not cut and dry. If we did a tenth of the shit mindless peace drones wanted, we'd be so incredibly fucked. It took decades to get ourselves (you Euros, Canucks and Aussies included) into this mess, it will take decades to get out of it, if we ever do.

Send your $1.00 a day to feed that starving kid in South America. Buy that $1.00 "Give Peace A Chance" bracelet if it makes you sleep better at night, just stay out of the way of people trying to take a realistic approach to the situation.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 11, 2005, 8:04 am

As I see it, the War on Iraq is an actual real war that is being fought in the name of the War on Terror, or at least it was in the beginning...

A War on Terror, to me, is about as abstract a concept as the War on Drugs. Terrorists are like drug dealers in the respect that they could be absolutly anyone, not only the muslim you run into on the street (aka McVeigh).

I'm gonna vote No on Iraq and Yes on a War on Terror fought not by the military but by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 11, 2005, 8:53 am

That is true to a point......but there are known terrorist organizations that have known members that are being sought out. The problem about fighting terrorism is that you have to be willing to give up some personal liberties in otder to combat it.....which most people are only willing to do directly after an attack and then whine about it after they forget that attack.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 11, 2005, 9:09 am

Winnow wrote:
Nick wrote:Ok I am unclear as to whether this is a poll of whether you support a "war on terror" that is aimed at realistically dealing with the trials we face or whether we support that dickhead Bush's sly and misconvieved attempt thus far?

I voted no in case it was the latter.

If it was the former, change it to a yes.
It feels good to place all the blame on a single person doesn't it? How about admitting that you are a part of the problem as much as anyone else?

Going around saying, "War man...it sucks" doesn't really help things now does it? Go to 10 peace rallys a year if it makes you feel better...that's sort of like drinking a diet coke to go along with your 4000 calorie meal if you're fat. Thank god for that diet coke! If you're not willing to knock the western world back to third world status, then don't bother with the "Give Peace A Chance" plan.

Be more of a realist. Understand how the world economy as a whole functions. Understand the implications of abrupt changes. It's not cut and dry. If we did a tenth of the shit mindless peace drones wanted, we'd be so incredibly fucked. It took decades to get ourselves (you Euros, Canucks and Aussies included) into this mess, it will take decades to get out of it, if we ever do.

Send your $1.00 a day to feed that starving kid in South America. Buy that $1.00 "Give Peace A Chance" bracelet if it makes you sleep better at night, just stay out of the way of people trying to take a realistic approach to the situation.

It's a rational argument, until you start to ask yourself how many arabs you're prepared to kill a year to keep the prices at the pumps down for an extra few years. All of them I suspect.

Clatis: btw, the number of foreigners on here isn't really statistically coherent with the world, but there's enough to skew a poll of Americans.. so what are you after?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 11, 2005, 9:40 am

this paper is full of facts about both the removal of terrorists and the regime change

What does the "regime change" in Iraq have to do with the "War on Terror"?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 11, 2005, 9:48 am

The problem with posing the fight against terrorism as a "war" is that it implies military action. In order to truly limit the effects of terrorism on the world, one has to change the causes of terrorism. I would posit that the ultimate cause of terrorism is a feeling of hopelessness - whether that is caused by economic conditions (the majority) or political-religious oppression/disagreements (minority). Fighting a "war against terrorism" has so far only exacerbated the above issues, creating more hopelessness in the world.

So, I would say I'm against the "war on terror" because is isn't truly a war in the conventional sense. We'll never "defeat" terror, and open ended wars are the stuff of 1984 and the like. Instead, it should be a movement to disenfranchise terrorists by attempting to remove the hopelessness in the regions that terrorist activities are the highest. That CANNOT be done by the gun.

Animale

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » July 11, 2005, 10:47 am

yeah see, that's the problem, I'm doing the war in iraq as a whole, I need two different polls for this

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 11, 2005, 10:54 am

Nick wrote:Ok I am unclear as to whether this is a poll of whether you support a "war on terror" that is aimed at realistically dealing with the trials we face or whether we support that dickhead Bush's poorly articulated lies and misconcieved notions that provoke terror thus far?

I voted no in case it was the latter.

If it was the former, change it to a yes.

Nick,

Please articulate your ideas for realistically dealing with the war on terror.
I would be greatly interested in seeing what these concepts are and more importantly how you would avoid making it look like the terrorists had won concessions.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 11, 2005, 11:31 am

Stop supporting Israel. They don't deserve anyone's support.

Stop supporting the Saudi Royal family.

Close Guantanamo.

Tell the countries you blindly support (listed above) to sort their human rights attitudes. If they don't, then feel free to impose sanctions (ones that cripple the people in charge, not the public)

Apologise for supporting the countless thousands of deaths the developed world has raped across the planet through monopolistic trade rules and dodgy moral crusades.

Still hunt the terrorists that have carried out the bombs (We will get Bin Laden, no matter what! yeah right) as opposed to randomly selecting oil rich countries you can make billions of dollars off by invading.

If you are "realistic" about the war on terror, it is time to stop thinking you are the police of the world, the kings of the universe and the righteous crusaders and consider why so many feel you are in fact provoking these people and fuelling their hatred (justifiably).

It may not end terror, but I don't think any terrorist on the planet could (or indeed any pro-human person) could fail to see the efforts are at least being made to create a fairer, less foxnews kind of world.

I know it may hurt the arms industry, but hey, that's better than more people dying.

No?

Winnow, I have to say, I don't think you are a realist, I think you are ignoring the issues in favour of a blind faith that murder and oppression will solve the problems. Which is exactly what we hate the faceless terrorists for.

This probably wouldn't end terror, but it's a much less stupid path than the one currently being forced onto everyone.

Sorry if it doesn't wrap itself around an american flag in pride, but that simply isn't what the war on terror is about.

Edit: If this feels like a concession, maybe you should consider the reality of the situation, instead of placing the importance of REMAINING DEFIANT!!1 in top spot.

There are issues involved our leaders refuse to discuss, they also, coincidentally are the ones where we are much less "good" than we think we are.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 11, 2005, 11:45 am

Ok I guess I voted wrong. I'm against the War in Iraq but for the war on Terrorism.

Marb

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 11, 2005, 1:03 pm

question!!!

did we ever declaire war on iraq? how can we keep troops there or whatever if were not at war with them?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » July 11, 2005, 1:17 pm

I liek pickels .

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 11, 2005, 1:51 pm

We'll never "defeat" terror, and open ended wars are the stuff of 1984 and the like.

I think this concept is lost on most. It was the first thing I thought of when we started our "war on drugs", and now the "war on terror". 1984 was extremely firghtening in it's predictions. We already mimic many of the subtle points of the book.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 11, 2005, 2:28 pm

Nick wrote:Stop supporting Israel. They don't deserve anyone's support.

Wondering how abandoning a people, surrounded by enemies is a good policy? Perhaps a more moderate stance would be appropriate but I can think of no other nation that needs "protection" more than Israel.

Nick wrote:Stop supporting the Saudi Royal family.

Agree with this completely.

Nick wrote:Close Guantanamo.

Agree provided those jailed there are either set free or tried for their crimes.

Nick wrote:Tell the countries you blindly support (listed above) to sort their human rights attitudes. If they don't, then feel free to impose sanctions (ones that cripple the people in charge, not the public)

Cannot think of one sanction that cripples those in charge without affecting the general population.

Nick wrote:Apologise for supporting the countless thousands of deaths the developed world has raped across the planet through monopolistic trade rules and dodgy moral crusades.

Cannot imagine this happening and if it did it would amount to a huge concession to the terrorists that what they are doing is actually working.

Nick wrote:Still hunt the terrorists that have carried out the bombs (We will get Bin Laden, no matter what! yeah right) as opposed to randomly selecting oil rich countries you can make billions of dollars off by invading.

If you are "realistic" about the war on terror, it is time to stop thinking you are the police of the world, the kings of the universe and the righteous crusaders and consider why so many feel you are in fact provoking these people and fuelling their hatred (justifiably).

Sorry, but there have been problems in this region of the world forever.
If the USA was remove as the great satan I have little doubt they would find another country to persecute (Israel).

Nick wrote:It may not end terror, but I don't think any terrorist on the planet could (or indeed any pro-human person) could fail to see the efforts are at least being made to create a fairer, less foxnews kind of world.

Edit: If this feels like a concession, maybe you should consider the reality of the situation, instead of placing the importance of REMAINING DEFIANT!!1 in top spot.

There are issues involved our leaders refuse to discuss, they also, coincidentally are the ones where we are much less "good" than we think we are.

Much of what you said feels like concessions, I am wondering if the USA were to enact a foreign policy that encompassed your ideas if it would lead to the thought that terrorism does work.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 11, 2005, 2:43 pm

As far as the poll, for action against terroris, be it The War on Terrorism or just some soundly thought out strategies for dealing with the perpetrators and supporters and against the Iraq invasion, but again I am a non-American so I'm not sure that my response is what you are looking for.

Nick/Tenny, I see a major flaw in your philosophy in the following statement:

It may not end terror, but I don't think any terrorist on the planet could (or indeed any pro-human person) could fail to see the efforts are at least being made to create a fairer, less foxnews kind of world.

You seem to be of the belief (or at least you appear to present it) that reason can sway these people or that would be willing to accept some type of compromise. Reasonable people don't use guns and bombs to make political statements. These people are fanatics of the same ilk of some of their most ardent opponents, just with a different cause and arguably less moral fibre (they ARE willing to commit direct acts of violence, where not all of their opponents are).

miir · Post by **miir** » July 11, 2005, 2:49 pm

Reasonable people don't use guns and bombs to make political statements. These people are fanatics of the same ilk of some of their most ardent opponents, just with a different cause and arguably less moral fibre

That attitude is similar to many Israalis attitudes on Palestinians.... and vice versa.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 11, 2005, 3:52 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The problem about fighting terrorism is that you have to be willing to give up some personal liberties in otder to combat it.....

Why?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 11, 2005, 5:01 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The problem about fighting terrorism is that you have to be willing to give up some personal liberties in otder to combat it.....
Why?

Your critical thinking is aiding the enemy!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 11, 2005, 5:09 pm

they hate us because of our Freedoms. So if we take them away, they won't have anything to hate us about anymore!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 11, 2005, 5:40 pm

Are we taking away the "Freedoms" or "They"

Clat, unless this is your graduate thesis, the discussion you're trying to address is far too vague. Hope the school grades on a curve

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » July 11, 2005, 6:34 pm

oh dude, this is just an English Arguementative paper, it's much more in depth than this

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 11, 2005, 6:36 pm

Drasta wrote:question!!!

did we ever declaire war on iraq? how can we keep troops there or whatever if were not at war with them?

because the current government of iraq wants us to finish our job there.

painful anal infiltration to anyone who voted no!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 11, 2005, 7:09 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The problem about fighting terrorism is that you have to be willing to give up some personal liberties in otder to combat it.....
Why?

Because we don't live in a utopian world? If you seriously think that we can let anyone do anything they want and bad people won't take advantage of that to cause mayhem, then I can't see where we need to debate anything. It is pointless to argue with people who are under the impression we live in a perfect world where everyone is reasonable all the time unless provoked.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 11, 2005, 7:28 pm

Reading all the arguements on the page I now think that we should fight the "war on terror" using law enforcement assets freed up by stopping the "war on drugs"

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 11, 2005, 9:12 pm

"War on Terror" is a term used to inspire what it is claiming to oppose.

Going to war with Al Qaeda would have been the most obvious and practical response to 911. Somehow dumb people everywhere have been fear mongered into accepting this never ending "war" which has no stated objectives and no stated enemy.

People now discuss this fantasy as tho it is based in some kind of reality.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 11, 2005, 9:31 pm

I hereby declare this poll to be FUBAR'd! The terminology used caused multiple cases of people voted on the thread title alone. Too many have already posted that they would vote for one and against the other, and some of those same people have stated that they voted for it as if it were not was it actually was!

FUBAR

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 11, 2005, 9:37 pm

Terrorism is a noun. You can't delcare war on a noun. It's a concept that has been around for thousands of years and will be around for thousands years after the United States is about as significant to the world as the Holy Roman Empire is nowadays.

Declaring a war on "terrorism" just gave the Bush junta what they think is carte blanche to attack whomever or whatever they want as long as they label them terrorists first. It's not a war they expect to win, because you can't win a war vs. a concept. They know, however, that they can hornswaggle Americans into giving him permission to run his little war profiteering invasions and watch his family and friends get fat off the taxpayer dime.

He also knows he doesn't have to focus on a job he knows he will fail at: dismantling al'queda and capturing Osama bin Laden (who is probably in saudi arabia sitting on a huge pile of silk cushions eating dates and whacking off to american porn on his dvd player as you read this), because he can just keep distracting Americans with this petty crap until his term ends.

So no, I don't support a war on terrorism any more than I support a war on jealousy or gravity.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 11, 2005, 10:25 pm

Uh... while I agree with many of your sentiments Kyoukan, if you don't declare war on a noun what would you declare it on? a verb?

"I hearby declare war on... fucking!" Oh wait... I think the fundies already did that... um... how about shitting!

Marb

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 12, 2005, 10:32 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The problem about fighting terrorism is that you have to be willing to give up some personal liberties in otder to combat it.....
Why?
Because we don't live in a utopian world? If you seriously think that we can let anyone do anything they want and bad people won't take advantage of that to cause mayhem, then I can't see where we need to debate anything. It is pointless to argue with people who are under the impression we live in a perfect world where everyone is reasonable all the time unless provoked.

Ok specifically which freedoms need to be reduced, how much, and in each case explain how that is substantially better at reducing potential terror attacks than pre-WTC?

I would posit that effective enforcement of pre-WTC standards would have been adequate to prevent the incident. Creating higher standards when you aren't adequately funding/monitoring current standards is just throwing good money after bad. Though we do have pretty colour coding now to ignore.

Yes if we remove everyone's rights to do anything, that will prevent terror...we call that a tyranny. I'm not suggesting that that is what the current administration is espousing. But reducing rights when current measures are inadequately enforced is unecessarily impinging on our freedoms. Tell me we met all the standards and it's still not working then we can talk about it one right at a time.

Don't give me some "it's obvious you idiot" bullshit. I'm not and it's not. It's pointless to argue with people who entirely fail to address a legitimate question by spewing hyperbole...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2005, 11:28 am

All I have seen people do is cry and whine about how much their life has been affected by these horrible losses of liberty. I still have yet to see anyone come up with anything that has been done that seriously affected their life in any way. Can you name some examples of things that have been done that make your life so horrible here that you would move out of the U.S. to a "free" country?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 12, 2005, 12:11 pm

Atokal, terrorism does work, look at the USA!

You're assumption that Israel needs protection is indescribably confusing.
For a few basic reasons.
A. it has one of the most well equipped armies on the planet (thanks Uncle USA).
B. It is the only middle eastern country with the bomb.
C. You seem to forget that there actually is is a FUCKING EXCELLENT reason for people to want to attack them.
Do I have to explain what they actually do to Palestinians every single day AGAIN?
This is not even an argument worth discussing, Israel is one of the most barbaric and shameful nations on this Earth, and they do not deserve any support whatsoever.
These are not hard facts to accept, or research, and it absolutely stuns me and saddens me that Americans seem to continue to blindly ignore this fact as if it is not relevant.

It is one of the main reasons the US and UK were attacked, it is one of the main reasons anyone with a fucking ounce of compassion for their fellow man is ashamed to watch people STUPIDLY supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Wulfran, I agree with what you are stating, and I do not think the people that flew planes into the WTC etc are reasonable people in the slightest.

However, they represent an extreme version of what literally millions of people feel. It is those people, the possible recruits, that must be given no legitimate reason to want to join this ever growing struggle.

At the moment, the USA is giving them legitimate reason after legitimate reason, this is what must stop if we have any desire to end the "terror".

Fairweather is right, the whole endless "war on terror" almost exactly mimics how "we have always been at war with eastasia!" in 1984.
An endless conflict is good for the people controlling the country, it provides an ideal mask for spreading fear and obediance, which is not what a free country is.

This is why the US is not viewed as a particularly free country these days.

Kyoukan, as usual, is right on the button, this whole farcical war on terror and the path it now takes merely detracts from what the fuck we are meant to be doing, which is tracking down Al Quaida and getting Bin Laden.
Anything other than that is not the point, a waste of time and money, an invitation to attack us again and point blank fucking retarded.

The reason this whole terror situation is escalating is because we are shooting ourselves in the foot on a daily basis, anyone who hasn't realised this is part of the problem and needs to shut the fuck up.

How's that for realism Winnow? Or doesn't it include enough murder for you?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 12, 2005, 1:02 pm

I still haven't seen a solution that would work outside of a fantasy world.

"Stop supporting Israel"

Oh yeah, that's the solution! Should we send the Jews back to Germany? Maybe the ovens and gas chambers are still functional.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 12, 2005, 1:07 pm

Congratulations for replying in the most embarrasingly sterotypical manner regarding any legitimate criticism of Israel.

Talk about swallowing the party line.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 12, 2005, 1:56 pm

Winnow wrote:I still haven't seen a solution that would work outside of a fantasy world.

"Stop supporting Israel"

Oh yeah, that's the solution! Should we send the Jews back to Germany? Maybe the ovens and gas chambers are still functional.

Well, since the US seems to be so happy about Israel, how about movign the israelis to the US? Give them one of the states noone will miss anyway.
Preferably do it forcefully moving the people of whatever state you choose out, then see how the surrounding states will react.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 12, 2005, 2:03 pm

Hesten wrote:
Winnow wrote:I still haven't seen a solution that would work outside of a fantasy world.

"Stop supporting Israel"

Oh yeah, that's the solution! Should we send the Jews back to Germany? Maybe the ovens and gas chambers are still functional.
Well, since the US seems to be so happy about Israel, how about movign the israelis to the US? Give them one of the states noone will miss anyway.
Preferably do it forcefully moving the people of whatever state you choose out, then see how the surrounding states will react.

I guess you missed my last proposal for the new homeland:

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 12, 2005, 2:10 pm

But that would give them control of part of the ANWR land! Tey will have our oilz!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 12, 2005, 7:01 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:All I have seen people do is cry and whine about how much their life has been affected by these horrible losses of liberty. I still have yet to see anyone come up with anything that has been done that seriously affected their life in any way. Can you name some examples of things that have been done that make your life so horrible here that you would move out of the U.S. to a "free" country?

'
I'll take that as a resounding, "I dunno."

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 12, 2005, 8:44 pm

Kilmoll:

I know an Indian (Indian like the Indian subcontinent, not Indian like Native American) couple that is being married in the United States soon. Both the husband and the wife are American citizens. Apparently, traditional Indian weddings involve a lot of preparation and a lot of relatives. As such, the parents of the engaged folks were planning to come over to the United States in order to do some things that need to be done for the wedding, and then to attend the wedding.

Unfortunately, because of immigration and travel standards that have been enacted after 9/11, their visa application was denied. The reason it was denied was that they had submitted insufficient proof that they intended to leave the country after their visa expired. The rejection letter specifically said (I'm accurately paraphrasing here) 'Do not contact us for information as to what would constitute sufficient proof of intent to leave. Each case is different and we are unable to provide any advice or information.'

End result: The parents are unable to attend the wedding or perform their functions as related to the wedding. The couple is unable to have a 'complete' wedding. This would not have occured without travel restrictions imposed post 9/11.

Now that I have given you a real, concrete example of someone whose life has been affected, will you respond to Arb's questions?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2005, 10:37 pm

http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/denia ... _1361.html

Your example is bullshit. Anyone with an internet connection or with family with an internet connection could have looked up everything pertaining to this and found out what they needed well in advance. Don't blame the laws for not being prepared when you are traveling.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 12, 2005, 10:49 pm

Yeah, I might have to go w/ Kilmoll on this one (to a point).

Certainly the "strong ties" provision has always been there, it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 12, 2005, 10:50 pm

As an academic scientist, I have seen first hand the crippling effects of the visa restrictions on our graduate programs, particularly at smaller institutions. Personally, I have had two of my labmates visa applications delayed for 6+ months... at which time they were supposed to be doing academic post-docs and working on projects with me that had to be postponed. One was from Russia and the other was a British Commonwealth citizen from Hong Kong. In both cases they were given no reason for the delay, and both had paid the extra fee ($1000) for "fast processing" of their applications.

Beyond the personal accounts, I have heard from colleagues that the visa restrictions are crippling graduate programs because they are having extreme difficulty in recruiting qualified graduate students from abroad. The difficulty in obtaining/keeping a student visa is a big deterrent to those considering graduate work in the U.S. While you might say "they are just taking up spots for U.S. students" that is just not the case, and because of the lack of qualified individuals many research programs are having to curtail their activities drastically.

In short, the visa restrictions put in place in the last 5 years have hurt the scientific research community dramatically, particularly at small research institutions that rely heavily upon foreign graduate students for quality work. This can't be a good thing.

Animale

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 12, 2005, 11:45 pm

AMERICAN RESEARCH BY AMERICAN TECHNICIANS LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT PINKO

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 13, 2005, 10:20 am

Animale wrote:As an academic scientist, I have seen first hand the crippling effects of the visa restrictions on our graduate programs, particularly at smaller institutions. Personally, I have had two of my labmates visa applications delayed for 6+ months... at which time they were supposed to be doing academic post-docs and working on projects with me that had to be postponed. One was from Russia and the other was a British Commonwealth citizen from Hong Kong. In both cases they were given no reason for the delay, and both had paid the extra fee ($1000) for "fast processing" of their applications.

Beyond the personal accounts, I have heard from colleagues that the visa restrictions are crippling graduate programs because they are having extreme difficulty in recruiting qualified graduate students from abroad. The difficulty in obtaining/keeping a student visa is a big deterrent to those considering graduate work in the U.S. While you might say "they are just taking up spots for U.S. students" that is just not the case, and because of the lack of qualified individuals many research programs are having to curtail their activities drastically.

In short, the visa restrictions put in place in the last 5 years have hurt the scientific research community dramatically, particularly at small research institutions that rely heavily upon foreign graduate students for quality work. This can't be a good thing.

Animale

Isnt that a part of the plan. Making sure noone from "outside" influence our research, trying to stop anyone whos not happily following the party line from researching, and at the same time trying hard to get religion to rival science in school?
Result = God will fix it, no matter what it it.
That should make the fundies happy for a while

VeeshanVault

Are you for or against the war?

Are you for the war?

Are you for or against the war?