the entire US political spectrum bailed at the idea of starting a war in Syria. It was in the US plans but the US public outcry is what stopped it.
The politicians on both sides of the isle were terrified if they had gone along with the war they would have been crucified in the next elections. All pussied out IMO.
BTW even if US had gone into war, it would not have changed the refugee crisis much. Oh and the ISIS flag would be waving in Damascus as well.
The problem is that not only are a lot of the refugees Syrian, a lot of them are Iraqi.
We bear direct responsibility for both.
There would be no ISIS if Saddam was still there, and there would be no destabilized Iraq were it not for our invasion and ed up occupation.
Goddamn Republican policy failures that we will take decades to fix, if ever. .
I'm confused, are people being asked to take refugees into their own homes?
So you are all talk? Not surprising.
OOh, so you think Saddam should still be there? Interesting.
Who know what the spluttering right in the country is saying anymore?
Conservatives use to have a more coherent narrative.
They did?
Just like all those in favor of invading Iraq immediately enlisted, remember?
Their government asked us to leave and Bush agreed to it.
Not quite what I said, although given the choice between ISIS and Saddam... eyuch, hard to say, which I would prefer. Which evil is/was lesser?
I can say that the totalitarian police state run by Saddam would have been much less likely to have allowed ISIS to form than the weak corrupt government in Iraq currently.
Saddam was completely neutered and didn't use any of his alleged stockpiles of WMD even in the most desperate of cir stances. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but the argument can be made.
Also we could have thought twice about disbanding the Iraqi army.
Or outlawing all the Baathists in one fell swoop.
Those two things could have prevented the insurgency and ISIS altogether.
You're all talk, how many n!ggers and Syrians are you housing and feeding? Shut tthe up do-gooderSo you are all talk? Not surprising.
Americans required criminal immunity for US military and contractors under SOFA, Iraqis said no, so dubya's agreement was to pull out.
Obama implemented dubya's agreement.
Slate can GFY.
Of course..taking saddam out was the beginning of the end
Remember when Egyptian dictator was taken out. And a few months later US, Israel and Saudi installed him back inEgypt without a dictator woulda been Iraq x 1000000
This 's crazy. you Bush
Lot of Texas libs in here and little to no talk about the actual OP.
Will you be welcoming the refugees like the Germans? Do you want them in your communities and as your neighbors? Will you invite them to your backyard BBQ's? Will you serve smoked pork butt?
Jesus would. What about all you bible thumpers and your christianity? Total bull .
If it's been decided that we have the capacity and resources to take in and give aid/shelter to 10K refugees then I'm not opposed to that. We're the wealthiest nation on the planet, we should be able to accommodate 10,000 refugees.
I don't plan on treating them any differently than any other person.
Why the hostility towards legal immigrants?
The plan is for near 100,000...10,000 just the start.
And where was I hostile? I'm just curious how welcoming you all will be.
Link?
Why would/should we be any more "welcoming" than we are towards normal legal immigrants? I'm probably going to have no real life interaction with them whatsoever.And where was I hostile? I'm just curious how welcoming you all will be.
I'd welcome them. I'm a great human being after all. Still doesn't take from the fact that Europe is ed and we are also welcoming thousands of sleeper cells.
Before the xenophobic, racist rightwing was dictating US refugee policy, another American LOST war of choice:
From Refugees To Americans: Thirty Years Of Vietnamese Immigration To The United States
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0313-campi.shtm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
