But hasn't the exact opposite of that happened?
I don't know is enough about it to be sure but my gut feeling is that had there been no war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya to go with the multitude of meddling in middle Eastern affairs, the West and indeed the world would probably be a safer place right now?
Close to half a million Iraqis were killed in Gulf War part 2: Bush Returns. Most of those being civilians. Ultimately a lot of US soldiers also lost their lives. Of which very many were guys who joined the army because they didn't have too many other options.
How many Americans or Europeans were killed at home by terrorists, relatively few by comparison. Not that I am belittling any innocent loss of life.
But those that were killed at home were, were often the victim of terrorists who lived in the country under refugee status.
So my question. Howcome everybody hates Trump's closed borders so much when it seems logical that it'd be the best way to save American lives on American soil. Much more logical than starting a war with people who had nothing do with terror attacks against the US on 9/11.
If we say that it is counterproductive and will only serve to antagonise potential extremists and thus create an even more dangerous situation then I have to ask: How does this closed borders antagonism stack up against the antagonism of the last 15 years worth of war? A protracted war that has evolved through different stages and into different territories with still no end in sight and having given rise to the likes of ISIS and many other attrocities.
If I were a Muslim like and lived somewhere in North Africa or the Middle East I'd be much more p1ssed about all of the above then about not being allowed asylum in the US.
Can somebody put me straight here because it looks to me like everybody is hating on Trump for dribbling in the bucket when it's his predecessors that p1ssed it full.
I'd appreciate some advice on how to think about this.


