American Response to Refugees

[Big Guy]

That wonderful country whose foreign policy has created about 2 million people to flee their countries is again showing its sense of accountability for causing this challenge through its actions in the Middle East. Their compassion for righting the wrongs it has created is a gold standard for the rest of the world;

http://www.wcvb.com/national/after-paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-shunned/36470318

Sure, not their problem.

The governors of at least 24 states have announced they will not accept Syrian refugees. The states range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 24 states, all but one have Republican governors.

Maybe they will send warm blankets to the various camps in Europe during the winter. What a wonderful standard for the leader of the free world. - NOT!

Edited November 17, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...Maybe they will send warm blankets to the various camps in Europe during the winter. What a wonderful standard for the leader of the free world. - NOT!

No inconsistency there...if playing politics was good enough for Canada's new prime minister and his party, it is certainly good enough for American governors. Blankets. com is ready to save the world...Canadian style !

[Big Guy]

So Kerry has decided that maybe the USA has some kind of responsibility for those millions of displaced persons from the Middle East:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/accept-tens-thousands-refugees-150921013907236.html

US vows to accept tens of thousands more refugees. Kerry says US will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year and that number will rise to 100,000 in 2017. Great to see that Statue of Liberty shining the way for all those who are paying the cost of arrogant American stupidity.

Maybe they can use some of their ships to get them across to the USA. Like the carrier on which George Bush, in full fighter gear, was photographed in front of that giant banner which proclaimed, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

The same "MISSION" that released that deadly ISIS genie.

[Wilber]

The US is ISIS's #1 target, compared to Canada which JT wishes to be invisible to ISIS.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Wilber

[Guest]

So Kerry has decided that maybe the USA has some kind of responsibility for those millions of displaced persons from the Middle East:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/accept-tens-thousands-refugees-150921013907236.html

US vows to accept tens of thousands more refugees. Kerry says US will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year and that number will rise to 100,000 in 2017. Great to see that Statue of Liberty shining the way for all those who are paying the cost of arrogant American stupidity.

Maybe they can use some of their ships to get them across to the USA. Like the carrier on which George Bush, in full fighter gear, was photographed in front of that giant banner which proclaimed, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

The same "MISSION" that released that deadly ISIS genie.

Arrogant American stupidity. Barbaric Islamic terrorism. Hey, are we twigging something here?

Edited November 17, 2015 by bcsapper

[Topaz]

Doesn't the countries that went into the ME to fight the enemy of the day, have a responsibility of helping the people? What NATO and the USA NEED to do is send boots on the ground, 100,000+ and take out ISIS once and for all because even thought the President of the US doesn't want to, which I can understand, there's no choice now, it has to be done because what ever they are doing isn't working and it would go on forever. Thoughts?

[capricorn]

The US is ISIS's #1 target, compared to Canada which JT wishes to be invisible to ISIS.

Well, if JT succeeds in whisking 25,000 refugees into Canada in the span of a few weeks, he won't be invisible to our friends to the south. That's when lineups at international border crossings will stretch as the US steps up scrutiny of human traffic coming from Canada. That will do wonders for our trade and economy. I bet the US Governors pushing back on accepting refugees are having talks about what awaits them from their neighbor to the north.

[Big Guy]

I understand that the USA claims sovereignty over its air space. It can refuse to allow any flights over American territory of refugees coming into Canada.

[GostHacked]

Doesn't the countries that went into the ME to fight the enemy of the day, have a responsibility of helping the people? What NATO and the USA NEED to do is send boots on the ground, 100,000+ and take out ISIS once and for all because even thought the President of the US doesn't want to, which I can understand, there's no choice now, it has to be done because what ever they are doing isn't working and it would go on forever. Thoughts?

Only if that line of thinking really works, or we would not have seen this after Hussein was ousted and executed.

[WestCoastRunner]

Only if that line of thinking really works, or we would not have seen this after Hussein was ousted and executed.

The world leaders need to get their shit together and we need to put more pressure on them to do so. Edited November 17, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[GostHacked]

The world leaders need to get their shit together and we need to put more pressure on them to do so.

The pressure only happens if there is some 'interests' in the area. Like oil for example. Not one shit given about the people there.

[eyeball]

That wonderful country whose foreign policy has created about 2 million people to flee their countries is again showing its sense of accountability for causing this challenge through its actions in the Middle East. Their compassion for righting the wrongs it has created is a gold standard for the rest of the world;

Well, to be fair to American politicians they're not the only one's who've rejected Semites fleeing persecution and death at the hands of their oppressors before.

I would have thought Netanyahu would have piped up and said something about that by now...I don't get it.

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, to be fair to American politicians they're not the only one's who've rejected Semites fleeing persecution and death at the hands of their oppressors before.

I would have thought Netanyahu would have piped up and said something about that by now...I don't get it.

This is a problem for the entire world to resolve. It's not all on Obama's shoulders.

[Wilber]

I understand that the USA claims sovereignty over its air space. It can refuse to allow any flights over American territory of refugees coming into Canada.

Flights from the ME to Canada won't need to enter US airspace.

[eyeball]

This is a problem for the entire world to resolve. It's not all on Obama's shoulders.

Clearly it's a global problem. There was a lot of hope pinned on Obama's shoulders in the beginning though, now I think his peace prize should be revoked.

Edited November 18, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly it's a global problem. There was a lot of hope pinned on Obama's shoulders in the beginning though, now I think his peace prize should be revoked.

Not Obama's shoulders responsibility...let all the hype and hope apply to Trudeau. Maybe he can win his own Nobel or something.

[eyeball]

No, he's just not ready.

[notca]

Has anyone considered that America's first responsibility is to her own people? That applies to every other country too that is so eager to take in the refugees.

Both America and Canada have unresolved issues with homeless and destitute people of our own who cannot scratch out a living, find an affordable place to live, get competent care for their physical/mental problems. Yet they can spend hundreds of millions of $ to help the refugees.

These governments, just like so many individuals, seem to find it much easier to solve other people's problems than they do to solve their own.

Make a list: On one side list the pros of bringing in refugees. On the other side list the cons.

There are a lot more 'cons' than 'pros'.

The only real pro is the emotional fervor from seeing pictures of a dead child. Saying the refugees will be good for the economy is pure BS, justification for a lost cause.

The list of 'cons' would be much, much longer. There is danger, cost, lack of housing accomodations, backlash from the opposing factions, and more.

These refugees have lived in war torn countries all their lives. Why are they suddenly fleeing en masse? Is there not a possibility that it is a 'Trojan horse' designed to inflate the Muslim population to the point where they will have the upper hand?

Knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as a 'crisis' don't usually end well.

[eyeball]

Has anyone considered that America's first responsibility is to her own people? That applies to every other country too that is so eager to take in the refugees.

Both America and Canada have unresolved issues with homeless and destitute people of our own who cannot scratch out a living, find an affordable place to live, get competent care for their physical/mental problems.

That's right and lucky for the destitute of America they're destitute in America because there are a lot of places where America bombs the shit out of destitute people.

Yet they can spend hundreds of millions of $ to help the refugees.

Chump change compared to the hundreds of billions of $ spent on creating conditions for refugees to flee in the first place.

These governments, just like so many individuals, seem to find it much easier to solve other people's problems than they do to solve their own.

Make a list: On one side list the pros of bringing in refugees. On the other side list the cons.

There are a lot more 'cons' than 'pros'.

The only real pro is the emotional fervor from seeing pictures of a dead child. Saying the refugees will be good for the economy is pure BS, justification for a lost cause.

The list of 'cons' would be much, much longer. There is danger, cost, lack of housing accomodations, backlash from the opposing factions, and more.

These refugees have lived in war torn countries all their lives. Why are they suddenly fleeing en masse? Is there not a possibility that it is a 'Trojan horse' designed to inflate the Muslim population to the point where they will have the upper hand?

Did anyone think to make a similar list before spending all the hundreds of billions I mentioned?

Knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as a 'crisis' don't usually end well.

Hmmmmm...you think so?

[notca]

That's right and lucky for the destitute of America they're destitute in America because there are a lot of places where America bombs the shit out of destitute people.

Chump change compared to the hundreds of billions of $ spent on creating conditions for refugees to flee in the first place.

Did anyone think to make a similar list before spending all the hundreds of billions I mentioned?

Hmmmmm...you think so?

Maybe you make some valid points there. But what is done is done and can't be undone. The issue of the day is what to do about the present dilemma facing us.

If past mistakes led us to the position of danger that we now find ourselves in what would you suggest? That we just lay down arms and surrender? Would you agree to saying to the enemy, "We realize we made you what you are, therefore we will allow you to attack us at will?

[Michael Hardner]

The issue of the day is what to do about the present dilemma facing us.

If past mistakes led us to the position of danger that we now find ourselves in what would you suggest? That we just lay down arms and surrender? Would you agree to saying to the enemy, "We realize we made you what you are, therefore we will allow you to attack us at will?

What is the other options, if this is indeed a 'dilemma' ?

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

I'm thinking you're going to offer us a 'false dilemma'. That could be something like: either we surrender or we assign our maximum resources to annihilating them.

I think we should stop talking about these things like they're the end of the world. They're not, and the terrorists get more traction from us paying attention to them than anything. "Terror" is an emotional response after all. I say we quietly accept that they're going to do this, and we allow our security forces to do their jobs to keep us safe.

[notca]

What is the other options, if this is indeed a 'dilemma' ?

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

I'm thinking you're going to offer us a 'false dilemma'. That could be something like: either we surrender or we assign our maximum resources to annihilating them.

I think we should stop talking about these things like they're the end of the world. They're not, and the terrorists get more traction from us paying attention to them than anything. "Terror" is an emotional response after all. I say we quietly accept that they're going to do this, and we allow our security forces to do their jobs to keep us safe.

A very good idea. But it didn't work so well in Paris, did it?

History should have taught us by now that the only way to ensure victory over a ruthless aggressor is to counter attack, strike fast and strike hard. Negotiations do not work, containment doesn't work.

I don't know that it is the best thing to 'quietly accept that they are going to do this". If we know they are going to do this, and we do know that, hundreds killed and maimed at one attack is too many to quietly accept.

Our security forces are excellent but there is only so much they can do to protect us. They do slip through the cracks.

We have threats to our safety enough within our own population of crazies. Does it make sense to allow crazies from outside to creep up on us too?

I respect a respectful rebuttal.

[Michael Hardner]

A very good idea. But it didn't work so well in Paris, did it?

By what measure ?

History should have taught us by now that the only way to ensure victory over a ruthless aggressor is to counter attack, strike fast and strike hard.

I'm not going to argue against that tactic but what is your measure of success ? You're missing the part that the 'terror' is the important thing, and overreacting is actually helping the enemy.

If you want to counter-attack then so be it, but why not just do that instead of dwelling on these easy victories by the enemy ? It makes us seem weak, IMO, on a few levels: one level in that we are so affected by it, and on another level by overemphasizing the scale of their success.

[notca]

By what measure ?

I'm not going to argue against that tactic but what is your measure of success ? You're missing the part that the 'terror' is the important thing, and overreacting is actually helping the enemy.

If you want to counter-attack then so be it, but why not just do that instead of dwelling on these easy victories by the enemy ? It makes us seem weak, IMO, on a few levels: one level in that we are so affected by it, and on another level by overemphasizing the scale of their success.

I have wondered the very same things. Why the half-hearted attacks on ISIS that the allies have engaged in? Their initial response to ISIS was to 'contain' them. They should have known that would not work. To fight an enemy the only thing to do is to be serious about it and do it effectively or not at all.

The lame efforts to contain ISIS did make the coalition appear weak. All that has been accomplished is to keep the pot boiling and extend the conflict.

ISIS is not going to go away. Whether we plink away at them endlessly with air strikes or go all out to eliminate them, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are going to be lost. My preference would be to strike fast, strike hard and eliminate them the sooner the better. In the doing, there would be fewer innocent lives lost in the long run than if ISIS is allowed to continue.

[Michael Hardner]

To fight an enemy the only thing to do is to be serious about it and do it effectively or not at all.

There isn't the political will to do that, you should know.