Ben Carson Wants Congress To Block Syrian Refugees

Page 1 of 3 [ 40 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Nov 2015, 11:15 am

Dillogic wrote:

I guess staying and fighting for their country is out of the question? I see lots and lots of young and healthy looking male "refugees"; all capable of fighting.

Anyone leaving their homelands for simple safety probably aren't the most honorable people around.

It doesn't seem there is much of an established country to fight for.....I thought the region was largely destabilized.

_________________
We won't go back.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Nov 2015, 11:21 am

Dillogic wrote:

Tollorin wrote:

I found your statement quite judgemental.

That would be because it is?

There's not much worst than a person that has no genuine ties to their homeland and isn't willing to fight for it. Said people aren't the types you want to take your help, as there's no appreciation. Women and their kids? Sure.

To run away and seek safety at the expense of those that offer you sanctuary is deplorable (everyone knows IS has followed them, intermingled with them; knowing that they're using your routes to wage war is negligence and malicious indifference in the least).

That is all very easy for someone who's never experienced war on their homeland to say...I mean name one time the U.S has been invaded and completely destabilized and you had to 'defend your homeland from the enemies at bay'? Like as in right at your doorstep willing to kill and destroy anything in their path like ISIS.....americans sure like to talk.

_________________
We won't go back.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,783
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Nov 2015, 11:56 am

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm sure the men in the situation of running for the sake of their families would have a different perspective on it.

Send your families off for protection, fight for your country.

Seems pretty simple.

If I was a kid in that situation, you better believe I'd prefer my dad alive with me, rather than him getting killed - or maybe worse, not knowing if he was alive or dead.

^Lame excuse for cowardice right there.
Maybe study the American Revolution a little sometime.
Oh wait; if we'd stayed with the crown instead of fighting it we'd have more free stuff at taxpayer expense now.
In your case forget what all I said above.
For a moment there I forgot who I was talking to.
:roll:

Till you're in that situation, don't judge. And as far as the American Revolution is concerned, you didn't have thousands of displaced persons who were facing certain torture, rape, and death at the hands of a fanatical enemy. The British for the most part behaved reasonably well (much better than the local militias who vacillated between the two warring sides), and so no, they can't be compared to ISIS. The children of the patriots serving in the Continental Army were in touch with their fathers through letters, and were kept informed about the location of the army, so there is zero resemblance between the two situations.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

17 Nov 2015, 1:04 pm

So, Dillogic, Raptor, if you were Syrian, which side would you fight for?

Islamic State? No?
Then the non-ISIS Islamist fundamentalists of the disintegrating "Free Syrian Army?" No?
The lovely Government of Assad?

Or is the idea that Syrian non-cowards will go out alone with whatever weapons they can find in the neighborhood or the family gun case and take on ISIS, Bashar Al Assad, Al Qaeda and the "Free Syrian Army" all by their brave selves?

That might be better described as insane than courageous.

Maybe the only sane choice is to get yourself and your family out and then work for the long term restoration of sanity from a safe place.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Nov 2015, 1:38 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm sure the men in the situation of running for the sake of their families would have a different perspective on it.

Send your families off for protection, fight for your country.

Seems pretty simple.

If I was a kid in that situation, you better believe I'd prefer my dad alive with me, rather than him getting killed - or maybe worse, not knowing if he was alive or dead.

The more evil they are the more reason there should be to fight them by whatever means available. By your reasoning the Russians should not have fought back against the invading Nazis in WW2.

Quote:

The children of the patriots serving in the Continental Army were in touch with their fathers through letters, and were kept informed about the location of the army, so there is zero resemblance between the two situations.

Yeah, do it for the children. Where have I heard that before?
:roll:

Never mind doing a greater deed for them, albeit one with immediate costs, to secure thier homeland for them and future generations. No, someone might get hurt that way. Better to crawl away like snakes from a burning brush pile.
Sometimes I really wonder.......

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Nov 2015, 1:47 pm

Adamantium wrote:

It can only be one or the other, eh? They couldn't possibly unify and create an alternative. Seems the time is ripe for that.

Quote:

Or is the idea that Syrian non-cowards will go out alone with whatever weapons they can find in the neighborhood or the family gun case and take on ISIS, Bashar Al Assad, Al Qaeda and the "Free Syrian Army" all by their brave selves?

That might be better described as insane than courageous.

History is full of examples of peoples prevailing under seemingly impossible odds.

Quote:

Maybe the only sane choice is to get yourself and your family out and then work for the long term restoration of sanity from a safe place.

Sit back and sip your latte in someone else's country while thier young men do the fighting for you in other words.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

17 Nov 2015, 2:15 pm

Raptor wrote:

Adamantium wrote:

It can only be one or the other, eh? They couldn't possibly unify and create an alternative. Seems the time is ripe for that.

Quote:

History is full of examples of peoples prevailing under seemingly impossible odds.

Quote:

Maybe the only sane choice is to get yourself and your family out and then work for the long term restoration of sanity from a safe place.

Sit back and sip your latte in someone else's country while thier young men do the fighting for you in other words.

Facile. Illogical.

An individual or family in a city caught between ISIS and Assad does not have the ability to "unify." There is no single people in Syria. There are divisions which are not easily overcome. In the face of all that, it's not unreasonable for people to want to survive. In many historical cases, the kind of change you think they should be making has been organized in part from expatriate communities who went abroad as refugees, then made plans in exile and finally returned to implement those plans.

This stuff about "women and children only" is just silly.

HisMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,271

17 Nov 2015, 2:23 pm

Raptor wrote:

Sit back and sip your latte in someone else's country while thier young men do the fighting for you in other words.

THAT is the fault of the countries who send out THEIR young men to fight someone else's war. As the mother of American children, I DON'T want my children to be sent to the Middle East (where they don't belong) to overthrow Assad (who isn't their leader) or the ISIS.

Fighting / overthrowing these arse01es are the responsibility of the local Shias and other minorities they oppress, not my children's.

_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".

-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Nov 2015, 8:23 pm

Syria was a stable secular country with a large middle class and we decided based on the success of our overthrow/murder of Gaddafi to start an uprising in Syria under the same pretenses, we were condemning Syria and Neocons were eagerly hoping for the 'revolutionary wave' to spread to there as well. Assad's regime did not collapse not could it be defeated militarily and it became a protracted Civil War and those "rebels" we gave weapons to turned out to be more than we could handle. Turkey and Saudi Arabia all but openly support ISIS. I feel bad for the refugees because I think ultimately the US is responsible for this conflict but there is too significant of security risk nor am I confident they can integrate into our society. Like I said, I think we should only take the persecuted minorities and women/young children who are the primary victims of this war. Assad has much more domestic support than our media like to portray, he could rule a country with only the tiny Alawite minority being his only base of support. Most of the SAA is Sunni altho the senior officers are mostly Alawite/Shia/some other loyal sect. Once this Civil War is over they can have internationally monitored elections and new constitution, I don't see how Assad can be excluded. Assad is not any more of a bad guy than the dictator in Saudi Arabia or the wannabe one developing Turkey but they're supposed to be our closest allies, yeah right.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,836
Location: Stendec

17 Nov 2015, 8:57 pm

Why would a man who wants to win the race to the "leadership of the free world" want to prevent people of a specific nationality and an ethnicity or religion that is not his own from entering his country? Would such a person be pandering to the fears of the voting majority? Could such a person be jealous of the benefits meted out to those who qualify for refugee status?

It would be more fair to require constraints on immigration from all countries, and not just one.

_________________

No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

18 Nov 2015, 2:35 am

Madeleine Albright has a good piece on this in Time:
http://time.com/4117333/madeleine-albright-refugees/

Quote:

This issue is personal to me, because it was 67 years ago last week that my family and I arrived in the U.S. to begin a new life in exile from our native Czechoslovakia. I will always feel an immense gratitude to this country, one shared by the millions of other refugees who have come to our shores in the years since—including Eastern European Jews, Hungarians, Vietnamese, Somalis, Cubans and Bosnian Muslims.

Today, the Syrian people are in the same position once occupied by these other groups. Their country is being destroyed by despotic leaders and terrorists, and the international community has failed them. They do not want to leave their country, but they have no choice. And while our focus should remain on supporting humanitarian efforts in the region, achieving a political settlement in Syria, and defeating the scourge of ISIS, the U.S. must do its part to alleviate the crisis by resettling some Syrian refugees. If we do otherwise, we will squander our moral authority and hurt our international credibility.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Nov 2015, 10:37 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

It doesn't seem there is much of an established country to fight for.....I thought the region was largely destabilized.

It didn't look too bad before the start of the fight (which was mainly due to government forces shooting/killing protesters with the military as far as I can tell).

There's sides that people can choose. The government, which was sorta stable, or those that wanted change.

Fleeing is taking the easy way out, in addition to endangering the good Samaritan.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Nov 2015, 10:51 pm

Adamantium wrote:

Madeleine Albright has a good piece on this in Time:
http://time.com/4117333/madeleine-albright-refugees/

Quote:

She's a terrible person and has no business lecturing anyone

This idea that we can "properly vet" Syria refugees is a joke, isn't that the whole friggin' problem we're having trying to find the fabled moderate Syrian opposition? How well did we vet Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? They were came here with their family and claimed asylum.

Most of the world isn't opening their door to these refugees, why is it our responsibility? How many is China resettling? What about South Africa? Brazil? Are these refugees only safe Nordic welfare states? Oh the humanity! Where can they go? We should force Turkey to take ALL of them or be ejected from NATO, they support ISIS so they should suffer its consequences and besides then these refugees could then easily return home once this war is over.

whatamess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,284

18 Nov 2015, 10:56 pm

Dillogic wrote:

No, actually, the right thing to do is for the young healthy males to leave their country and then ask the other governments to send their young and healthy males to fight for such country...sounds fair to me...hmmm

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Nov 2015, 11:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

It's far harder for me to say that running away would be the prudent course of action when we're dealing with where I was born. Fighting and potentially dying is so easy compared to that.

You know, your homeland and all that.

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

19 Nov 2015, 12:20 am

Jacoby wrote:

How well did we vet Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? They were came here with their family and claimed asylum.

Yeah. You can never be too careful about those 8 year olds. No telling what they might be planning.

Page 1 of 3 [ 40 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Ben Carson Wants Congress To Block Syrian Refugees Post Reply New Topic

Ben Carson Wants Congress To Block Syrian Refugees