Do You Support Obama's Plan For More Syrian Refugees.

[metis]

I think that the Obama's plan is to pass the problem onto the next President and he does not want his legacy damaged by doing anything other than talking.

BTW, you actually never answered my last question (post #97), namely "How about you?".

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

A quite overwhelming "yes" vote. Interesting however some of the responses are even more interesting.

Most of the responses seem to go down the route of "well yeah, there may be some terrorists but hey, I'm a liberal and I reckon we should let them in, yay for me and my big heart."

I hate to sound so condescending but all of us here in the so called west have to take responsibility to what we and our governments and armies have done to the middle east, much of asia and most of africa. If these people, only a minority of the refugees in reality, are looking for a safe haven in the US or Europe, we should provide, considering we are the ones that have destroyed their towns, cities and countries.

And the issue of terrorism is based on the famous theory of creating a common enemy rather than reality.

 

[esmith]

BTW, you actually never answered my last question (post #97), namely "How about you?".

I assume you meant "need to be compassionate and caring for innocent victims,"
Not if it endangers me. Would I be endangered by Syrian refugees being placed near me? I don't know, but I do know that until it is proven that they do not present a possible danger I say keep them out. I would support funds for aid but that is as far as I'm willing to go. I also think that they would create a heavy burden on the economy. My answer is to eradicate the problems that are causing them to flee in the first place. And yes I mean eradicate.

 

[metis]

I assume you meant "need to be compassionate and caring for innocent victims,"
Not if it endangers me. Would I be endangered by Syrian refugees being placed near me? I don't know, but I do know that until it is proven that they do not present a possible danger I say keep them out. I would support funds for aid but that is as far as I'm willing to go. I also think that they would create a heavy burden on the economy. My answer is to eradicate the problems that are causing them to flee in the first place. And yes I mean eradicate.

And exactly how do you propose the latter,.especially since there are multitudes of civilians in ISIS-held areas? Also, we are not talking about taking in large numbers of civilians being taken in here in the U.S., most of which would be women with children, plus they would be scattered around the country anyway.

When the former country of Yugoslavia split and broke into civil war, my synagogue took in seven Muslim families for one year at our expense and with help from Jewish Federation to get them here. We didn't run and hide as if we were afraid of our own shadow. After a couple of years, all but two young men returned, and I don't even know if they stayed in the longer run.

 

[esmith]

And exactly how do you propose the latter,.especially since there are multitudes of civilians in ISIS-held areas? Also, we are not talking about taking in large numbers of civilians being taken in here in the U.S., most of which would be women with children, plus they would be scattered around the country anyway.

You mean eradicate the problem? I did misspeak on using the term eradicate the problems that is causing the refugee issue. There is two problems that are causing this issue; one is ISIS and the other is Assad.
Problem 1. ISIS. The only way to address this problem is with a military solution. ISIS must be eradicated from Iraq and Syria first, then continue to go after them and any other terrorist group throughout the world. This unfortunately will case civilian casualties but can not be helped. In addition,, this is not a single generational problem
Problem 2. Assad. At the present time there is basically a civil war going on. Russia, Iran and their proxies are supporting Assad. Until Russia and Iran are forced to abandon their backing the civil war will continue. To convince Russia and Iran to cease their support must not be by military action, but through economic pressure on both of them. Even if Russia and Iran remove their support the civil war will continue until Assad either steps down or is taken down. All external support to either side must be withdrawn and aggressively monitored.
There are always civilian causalities in a civilian war and nothing can change that.

I will not support any plan that brings Syrian refugees to this country.

 

[metis]

You mean eradicate the problem? I did misspeak on using the term eradicate the problems that is causing the refugee issue. There is two problems that are causing this issue; one is ISIS and the other is Assad.
Problem 1. ISIS. The only way to address this problem is with a military solution. ISIS must be eradicated from Iraq and Syria first, then continue to go after them and any other terrorist group throughout the world. This unfortunately will case civilian casualties but can not be helped. In addition,, this is not a single generational problem
Problem 2. Assad. At the present time there is basically a civil war going on. Russia, Iran and their proxies are supporting Assad. Until Russia and Iran are forced to abandon their backing the civil war will continue. To convince Russia and Iran to cease their support must not be by military action, but through economic pressure on both of them. Even if Russia and Iran remove their support the civil war will continue until Assad either steps down or is taken down. All external support to either side must be withdrawn and aggressively monitored.
There are always civilian causalities in a civilian war and nothing can change that.

I will not support any plan that brings Syrian refugees to this country.

Chicken Little I'm sure would feel the same way. And where's any compassion whatsoever for completely innocent women and children fleeing a war zone? That would be like me standing on the shore watching a little child drown just because it's not my child. I have known people who have risked their own lives in order to save a person they don't know.

ISIS is in serious trouble and is falling apart, but splinter groups are going to be a long-standing problem.

A living Assad running part of Syria actually is probably preferable over ISIS running the same-- just take the word of the Israelis on that. Assad knows his constraints, but ISIS hadn't but is now learning.

BTW, what kind of economic pressure would you put on the Russians and why do you think that would work? Ever hear of "the Law of Unforeseen Consequences"?

 

[esmith]

Chicken Little I'm sure would feel the same way. And where's any compassion whatsoever for completely innocent women and children fleeing a war zone? That would be like me standing on the shore watching a little child drown just because it's not my child. I have known people who have risked their own lives in order to save a person they don't know.

ISIS is in serious trouble and is falling apart, but splinter groups are going to be a long-standing problem.

A living Assad running part of Syria actually is probably preferable over ISIS running the same-- just take the word of the Israelis on that. Assad knows his constraints, but ISIS hadn't but is now learning.

BTW, what kind of economic pressure would you put on the Russians and why do you think that would work? Ever hear of "the Law of Unforeseen Consequences"?

Have not forgotten your question. At this time I have a lot on my plate and will attempt to respond to your question. Might take a couple of days though

 

[metis]

Have not forgotten your question. At this time I have a lot on my plate and will attempt to respond to your question. Might take a couple of days though

No problem, and thanks for the heads-up.

 

[esmith]

Well I promised a response so guess I will try. (unlike some on this forum).
As I said there are two major problems that is causing people to flee Syria....Civil War, and ISIS.
ISIS can be dealt with militarily but it will require the common term "boots on the ground". The air campaign will be ineffective to kick ISIS out of Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately they will only move, as they are doing now into Libya. In other words a continuing battle that can not be won. But we, the world, have no other choice but continue to keep them on the run and attempt to minimize their atrocities. This goes for any other type of "organization".

Now for the Civil War.
I suspect that Russia can convince Assad to step down and show that they are a major player in the world. The only problem is who ascendance to power? Can whomever takes over the reigns of power be trusted. That is the big problem. Is someone we know better than someone we don't know? You got me there. But Assad has to step down or the civil war will continue.. But depending on the new leadership it could be just as bad as it is now.

As far as Iran.
The genie is out of the bottle, economic sanctions can not be imposed. There are two many countries that want to do business with them and I don't think any action by Iran, short of using an atomic weapon will cause them to change their mind. In addition it is a proven fact that this administration really let Iran dictate the terms of the present agreement. The US will not take any action while this administration is in power. I can foresee Hillary or Cruz, and maybe even Trump using force (economic backed up with military threats) to force Iran to stop their current march to be the major player in the Mid East. This could erupt into a major conflict between Iran and the U.S. They will obtain a nuclear weapon in the very near future; 5 years at the most, why else spend resource on ICBM's,(you don't put conventional weapons on those.

I still don't want Syrian refugees let into this country. We just don't have the economic, at this time, to support them; let alone the possibility of terrorist within their ranks.

That's about all I got. In other words, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. All I know is that the Islamic terrorism will continue to grow and spread as long as there are those that are willing to support them economically and those that believe in what they stand for.

In other words, I have given up on any possible solution to the issues facing this country and the world. Also I do not see anyone than can heal the problems that we face as a nation. I hate to say this, but I'm glad we do not have children. I could get morbid, but I'm having to much fun enjoying my twilight years.

 

[metis]

Well I promised a response so guess I will try. (unlike some on this forum).
As I said there are two major problems that is causing people to flee Syria....Civil War, and ISIS.
ISIS can be dealt with militarily but it will require the common term "boots on the ground". The air campaign will be ineffective to kick ISIS out of Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately they will only move, as they are doing now into Libya. In other words a continuing battle that can not be won. But we, the world, have no other choice but continue to keep them on the run and attempt to minimize their atrocities. This goes for any other type of "organization".

Now for the Civil War.
I suspect that Russia can convince Assad to step down and show that they are a major player in the world. The only problem is who ascendance to power? Can whomever takes over the reigns of power be trusted. That is the big problem. Is someone we know better than someone we don't know? You got me there. But Assad has to step down or the civil war will continue.. But depending on the new leadership it could be just as bad as it is now.

As far as Iran.
The genie is out of the bottle, economic sanctions can not be imposed. There are two many countries that want to do business with them and I don't think any action by Iran, short of using an atomic weapon will cause them to change their mind. In addition it is a proven fact that this administration really let Iran dictate the terms of the present agreement. The US will not take any action while this administration is in power. I can foresee Hillary or Cruz, and maybe even Trump using force (economic backed up with military threats) to force Iran to stop their current march to be the major player in the Mid East. This could erupt into a major conflict between Iran and the U.S. They will obtain a nuclear weapon in the very near future; 5 years at the most, why else spend resource on ICBM's,(you don't put conventional weapons on those.

I still don't want Syrian refugees let into this country. We just don't have the economic, at this time, to support them; let alone the possibility of terrorist within their ranks.

That's about all I got. In other words, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. All I know is that the Islamic terrorism will continue to grow and spread as long as there are those that are willing to support them economically and those that believe in what they stand for.

In other words, I have given up on any possible solution to the issues facing this country and the world. Also I do not see anyone than can heal the problems that we face as a nation. I hate to say this, but I'm glad we do not have children. I could get morbid, but I'm having to much fun enjoying my twilight years.

Thanks for the explanation and clarification, and some I agree with and some I don't, but se la vie.

Take care and have a great weekend. Gonna snow here over the next three days-- so much for "spring".

 

[esmith]

Thanks for the explanation and clarification, and some I agree with and some I don't, but se la vie.

Take care and have a great weekend. Gonna snow here over the next three days-- so much for "spring".

supposed to get up to 80 today........grin....

 

[metis]

supposed to get up to 80 today........grin....

Up yours and the horse you came in on.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't actually support the mass immigration of refugees from the area. I do support the idea of funneling our billions of dollars into UN run camps in nearby countries. The idea is that, though inconvenient, these camps would exist until things settle down in Syria. Once the current festivities are over these poor folks could then return to their homeland and try to rebuild their nation. We have pretty well guaranteed that Syria will be a basket case for many years to come.

Agreed. With such a plan, a country does not forego its humanitarian obligations. I do believe that the US has an obligation to provide humanitarian aid in a manner that does not compromise our security or that of the refugees for that matter.

 

[Aquitaine]

A quite overwhelming "yes" vote. Interesting however some of the responses are even more interesting.

Most of the responses seem to go down the route of "well yeah, there may be some terrorists but hey, I'm a liberal and I reckon we should let them in, yay for me and my big heart."

I hate to sound so condescending but all of us here in the so called west have to take responsibility to what we and our governments and armies have done to the middle east, much of asia and most of africa. If these people, only a minority of the refugees in reality, are looking for a safe haven in the US or Europe, we should provide, considering we are the ones that have destroyed their towns, cities and countries.

And the issue of terrorism is based on the famous theory of creating a common enemy rather than reality.

Better hope you've got plenty of spare rooms at your place.

Agreed. With such a plan, a country does not forego its humanitarian obligations. I do believe that the US has an obligation to provide humanitarian aid in a manner that does not compromise our security or that of the refugees for that matter.

On top of that, having a serious review of foreign policy will definitely help: less intervention, less destruction, less blowback.

Oh, and less tax dollars being spent on unnecessary fighting!

Up yours and the horse you came in on.

The Lego Hippy has spoken!

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Better hope you've got plenty of spare rooms at your place.

You are insinuating that I must take personal responsibility and invite the refugees into my own home. The reality is, that once I start work and eventually get a place of my own (bought or rented) I will happily put up a room. There is no need for "plenty of space" considering only a few hundred if that, have arrived in the UK in the first place.

However, if I do not have enough space, physically, I will still be paying my taxes, which sends thousands of pounds, per person, into the hands of the government. Instead of using that money to kill people, maybe they could use to create a shelter, rent a building. It can't cost that much as there aren't that many Syrian refugees in the UK, neither are there that many all across Europe. The majority, numbering in their millions, have been displaced within Syria itself or a handful of neighbouring countries.

 

[Aquitaine]

You are insinuating that I must take personal responsibility and invite the refugees into my own home. The reality is, that once I start work and eventually get a place of my own (bought or rented) I will happily put up a room. There is no need for "plenty of space" considering only a few hundred if that, have arrived in the UK in the first place.

However, if I do not have enough space, physically, I will still be paying my taxes, which sends thousands of pounds, per person, into the hands of the government. Instead of using that money to kill people, maybe they could use to create a shelter, rent a building. It can't cost that much as there aren't that many Syrian refugees in the UK, neither are there that many all across Europe. The majority, numbering in their millions, have been displaced within Syria itself or a handful of neighbouring countries.

But it's not just the Syrians though is it? You mentioned the Middle East, much of Asia and most of Africa; depending on how far back we measure the damage caused by the UK's foreign policy, pretty soon that roughly 200 or so will turn in to a significantly higher number.

Still, if you stick by your word and willingly house a refugee (muslim or otherwise) then hats-off to ya.
Though I'm not gonna lie, I am concerned about the idea of the public being made to pay for the overseas actions of the government - especially if it includes historical damage caused the the UK.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

But it's not just the Syrians though is it? You mentioned the Middle East, much of Asia and most of Africa; depending on how far back we measure the damage caused by the UK's foreign policy, pretty soon that roughly 200 or so will turn in to a significantly higher number.

Still, if you stick by your word and willingly house a refugee (muslim or otherwise) then hats-off to ya.
Though I'm not gonna lie, I am concerned about the idea of the public being made to pay for the overseas actions of the government - especially if it includes historical damage caused the the UK.

Thank you.

And yes, if we are now going to speak about Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and so on and so forth then the number does grow. I can't argue with that but that number is nowhere near the number of refugees nations like Pakistan and Lebanon have to put up with. Add to that the fact that what refugees require is a hand, not unlimited payment. The majority of refugees I have come across work harder than the indigenous people, work longer and share a room with 4 or 5 others. The more than pay for themselves and should be given the opportunity to live here peacefully.

Btw, what do you mean by that last paragraph?

 

[Aquitaine]

Thank you.

And yes, if we are now going to speak about Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and so on and so forth then the number does grow. I can't argue with that but that number is nowhere near the number of refugees nations like Pakistan and Lebanon have to put up with. Add to that the fact that what refugees require is a hand, not unlimited payment. The majority of refugees I have come across work harder than the indigenous people, work longer and share a room with 4 or 5 others. The more than pay for themselves and should be given the opportunity to live here peacefully.

Btw, what do you mean by that last paragraph?

Regarding the last paragraph, I'm talking about reparations from one country to another, based on historical misdeeds. So for example the UK 'repaying' everything it has taken from its imperial past.
The problem I have with this is that it shifts the burden of reparation on to the public who weren't even a part of the original wrongdoing. Just like how me and you are not responsible for the colonial violence of the UK, or modern Germans for the Nazis etc.

It can also apply to contemporary wrongdoing: I was strongly opposed to the 'War on Terror' but Tony Blair took us to war regardless.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Regarding the last paragraph, I'm talking about reparations from one country to another, based on historical misdeeds. So for example the UK 'repaying' everything it has taken from its imperial past.
The problem I have with this is that it shifts the burden of reparation on to the public who weren't even a part of the original wrongdoing. Just like how me and you are not responsible for the colonial violence of the UK, or modern Germans for the Nazis etc.

It can also apply to contemporary wrongdoing: I was strongly opposed to the 'War on Terror' but Tony Blair took us to war regardless.

Ahh, ok ok, I get you. Reparations to modern day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh would be enough to bankrupt us as a nation anyway especially, as you put it, it would go on the backs of the everyday people.

Having said that, a better thing to do would be to act more responsibly as a nation. We need to change our political rhetoric and foreign policy. We also need to understand that the refugees arriving in our country have not been born in a vacuum, they are a result of the history of this and many other nations.

 

[Aquitaine]

Ahh, ok ok, I get you. Reparations to modern day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh would be enough to bankrupt us as a nation anyway especially, as you put it, it would go on the backs of the everyday people.

Having said that, a better thing to do would be to act more responsibly as a nation. We need to change our political rhetoric and foreign policy. We also need to understand that the refugees arriving in our country have not been born in a vacuum, they are a result of the history of this and many other nations.

Very true, our foreign policy needs to change drastically. Act less like an empire and more like a country. I personally believe the same is true with the United States, along with Russia.
A few years back when I spoke to my MP to voice my concerns - back when Cameron authorized airstrikes over Libya - he tried to assure me that there are "no warmongers on the cabinet" which I find difficult to believe.

We can definitely agree that there is a butterfly effect in relation to our interventions in other countries: destabilizing Iraq, Libya and helping to disrupt Syria has played a crucial role in the creation of ISIS.
Hell if you go back a few decades, it can be argued that the US helped to create Al-Qaeda back when they were arming the Muhajideen in the Afghan-Soviet war.
So much of our current problems can be attributed to reckless and aggressive military decisions made in the past.

Still, one thing that gives me an ounce of hope is remembing how Cameron go slapped down when he tried to push for an invasion of Syria: both the public and even members of his own party told him to back the f*** down.