CDZ The Refugee Conundrum

[jwoodie]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

 

[tinydancer]

Well I'm about to have a blast over "refugees" running from expensive Somali centers in Minneapolis now on the bridge of losing their welfare rights running to Canada.

Somali Muslims have been sooooooooooooo gaming the system. They are smart mother fuckers. Make no mistake.

Now. How does a Somali reconcile horrid conditions when they are allowed THREE FUCKING MONTHS TO GO HOME.

Are you getting this down there? YOU pay for their homes. YOU keep their apartments rocking when they visit back to the homeland.

Good lord we have people who are sleeping on streets in minus 30 degree weather and we are now to feel sorry for Somalis who are the welfare scourge of the planet crossing into Canada for better welfare?

 

[tinydancer]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

I'm asking why I have to take in refugees from Minneapolis?

 

[BULLDOG]

The refuges are victims of the violence, not perpetrators. We have always been a compassionate country. Why do you want to become a selfish and hateful country?

 

[jwoodie]

The refuges are victims of the violence, not perpetrators. We have always been a compassionate country. Why do you want to become a selfish and hateful country?

Do we want to become the world's enablers?

 

[Fishlore]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

The conflict which has spread from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria is not one in which the USA is a mere humanitarian bystander. We have been involved in conflict in all three of these areas, plus Lebanon and Palestine for many years. We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and provided financial and military backing for bloody-handed dictators. Add Iran to the list on that one.

Why are we in the Middle East blood bath up to our eyebrows? Oil and Israel -- it is really that simple. We can't walk away from the human tragedies in which we have played a dominating if hypocritical role. Karma doesn't work like that.

 

[BULLDOG]

The refuges are victims of the violence, not perpetrators. We have always been a compassionate country. Why do you want to become a selfish and hateful country?

Do we want to become the world's enablers?

Who is being enabled by helping refugees? Did the refugees cause the war that they are caught up in?

 

[Toronado3800]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

Interesting.

We obviously can't take in EVERY refugee. Far as numbers, I'd say we could camp our immigrant/refugee numbers at 3 million a year and still be a bit picky? I think its ~775,000 now. We need folks who will want to live in our 100 year old city homes and 60 year old suburbs.

Does it encourage military conflicts.....tough. Maybe taking in refugees makes it easier to govern a conquered territory. If the WWII French Resistance could get over here easier maybe 10% fewer would have stuck around to fight?

The creator of the refugee problem is the attacking party. I don't think we can blame the people who are fleeing or the countries which are taking them in.

Don't worry, we aren't facilitating the aggression which displaces the refugees, purposely anyways, we're bombing ISIS. You can say we have destabilized the Middle East and caused the problem though. I'm not ready to defend the dictators in Iraq, Lybia or Syria. Bush W and Obama inherited animosity with the dictators which ran back to the 80's and I'm not sure I would have helped Muammar Gaddafi stay in power or Assad fight the separatists.

 

[jwoodie]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

The conflict which has spread from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria is not one in which the USA is a mere humanitarian bystander. We have been involved in conflict in all three of these areas, plus Lebanon and Palestine for many years. We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and provided financial and military backing for bloody-handed dictators. Add Iran to the list on that one.

Why are we in the Middle East blood bath up to our eyebrows? Oil and Israel -- it is really that simple. We can't walk away from the human tragedies in which we have played a dominating if hypocritical role. Karma doesn't work like that.

I'm sure you blame the U.S. for every conflict in the world since 1776, so I suppose your only solution is to throw open the gates and welcome the invaders.

 

[BULLDOG]

We have a tradition of offering assistance to war refugees from areas where we have been militarily involved, but how far should we expand this largess to those affected by third party conflicts such as in Syria? It seems to me that this simply encourages military conflicts and rewards the victors with a convenient way to remove political dissidents.

In addition, doesn't the creation of a refugee crisis and migration constitute an assault against affected neighboring countries? Why should this be passively accepted by those countries? I am all in favor of providing relief to victims of natural disasters, but I do not think we should facilitate deliberate acts of aggression by ameliorating the consequences of those actions.

What say you?

The conflict which has spread from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria is not one in which the USA is a mere humanitarian bystander. We have been involved in conflict in all three of these areas, plus Lebanon and Palestine for many years. We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and provided financial and military backing for bloody-handed dictators. Add Iran to the list on that one.

Why are we in the Middle East blood bath up to our eyebrows? Oil and Israel -- it is really that simple. We can't walk away from the human tragedies in which we have played a dominating if hypocritical role. Karma doesn't work like that.

I'm sure you blame the U.S. for every conflict in the world since 1776, so I suppose your only solution is to throw open the gates and welcome the invaders.

Sad, but I don't know if you actually believe such a silly statement.

 

[CatInTheSplat]

It would be better in every conceivable way to provide a safe space for them in their own country, while hostilities played out.