Reply With Quote
If critically injured, orphaned, etc...sure, good idea.
Frankly we wouldn't worry about whether or not we could take in poor people from around the world without the welfare state in place.
Heard on the radio we're going to take in 9000 refugees from Haiti, here in the U.S.
Good idea or bad?
If critically injured, orphaned, etc...sure, good idea.
Frankly we wouldn't worry about whether or not we could take in poor people from around the world without the welfare state in place.
No.
Take care of your own citizens/state before you start worrying about foreigners.
Yeah dude on the radio was going on about how bad it was cuz its easy for a terraist to infiltrate us that way
Would we not want others to experience human liberty as we do?
And I'm not sure there were many jihadis in Haiti.
Experience human liberty by drawing resources away from actual citizens who put in their work only to have money taken out of their earnings every day.
No thanks.
Realistically, of course america will let them in. There is obviously enough space and enough funny money to take them all in.
Our foreign policy is not about investment, security, or maintaining resources. It's about feeling good about ourselves. There is always a group of Americans who we can legally require to pay for it.
By squeezing off a few hundred billion $s worth of munitions in Central Asia and the ME.Our foreign policy is not about investment, security, or maintaining resources. It's about feeling good about ourselves.
I'd rather be taxed to pay for some seriously injured Haitians than to invade yet another sovereign state.
Americans, always closing the door after themselves.
The destabilization of an entire country not 700 miles from our border implicates some national security issues, the moral quandaries aside.
This country does need to stop seeing a terrorist behind every tree.
As long as there's political hay to be made from it, good luck.
So you are ok with foreign policy as long as it doesn't benefit us and is not an investment of any kind? We export our beliefs and monies and deploy our soldiers as long as it is not to have lasting democracy and make our country safer.
Sounds more like he's ok with aid as opposed to agression.
Now wanton invasions by the Pentagon are "benefits" and "investments."
The Wilsonian disease of adventurous wars to "spread democracy."We export our beliefs and monies and deploy our soldiers as long as it is not to have lasting democracy and make our country safer.
Anyways, on the grand list of state actions abroad, providing aid to a poor people, the poorest in the Western hemisphere, who just suffered a natural disaster of epic proportions, ranks near the bottom as something to be concerned about.
I would much prefer our resources be used to help thousands of injured, des ute Haitians from a few hundred miles away than be used to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians half way across the world.
WHo killed thousands of Iraqi civilians?
You take in the innocent of all innocents,...the little ones. Man, they have no concepf of politics or wars or any of the other problems that ill mankind.
Take them in for what though? How would they be raised? Wherre would they go?
Adoption is allowed in the US, no?
Ask Angelina Jolie to adopt them all?
Those out of work children could be given jobs assembling crap for Wal-Mart over there. Just expand NAFTA a bit. Two mud pies a day and one bathroom break.
war is , dear.
Such an inevitability. Empire's gotta flex every once in a while, y'know?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
