First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply thoughts on bringing syrian refugees over to america?
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/18/15

Ranwolf wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



A bit harsh, but I believe your statistic of health males in a certain age range are right from what I've heard. Haven't fact checked yet to see if they're more economic migrants.


Male, female it doesn't matter. After all plenty of armies now sport female soldiers so the women of this refugee horde have no excuse not to fight. And yeah it's a bit harsh but after my time in Afghanistan and spending time training the locals, patrolling IED ridden roads and fire fights with the camel jockeys I have little patience for the whining of the Middle East. Yeah I agree we of the west cause you all a lot of problems but expecting us to carry you forever is a bit much. We gave you uniforms, weapons,training, even economic aid. The first world didn't become the first world by complaining and running to mommy every time a bully showed up.


I haven't check female, I heard it was mostly male so I went with that. Although it be fair to note that aid might still be needed. However, from my experience and knowledge, exoduses rarely helps the country.
3510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/19/15


They can't though. They're lacking basic necessities let alone weapons to take on the whole of ISIS and other powers. It's not 'unwilling' to defend itself, it can't. At least have sympathy for women and children who haven't done anything wrong and still are being murdered via attacks/chemical weapons. If another Western county was overthrown with ISIS killing citizens, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to run away but because it's a Middle-Eastern county no one cares.





Even if some of the attackers were refugees (which I doubt) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512 this source shows they were French Nationals.
That is only a minority, and cannot speak for the entirety of the refugees
You're right I'm not certain that they don't want to kill us, but neither are you. However, most of them want to run away from conflict and not cause it, their aim is to achieve protection.
They can't achieve safety themselves. Firstly they have no food, homes etc let alone weapons. You're basically saying that the Syrian citizens should take on ISIS when not even the Western powers can't manage that. Clearly you're not susceptible to take in the other side's point of view.
It seems like you're only soaking in the media's words, believing everything they say. It's strange how the media only highlights the Paris attack but not the fact that days after France bombed Syria killing citizens.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/18/15

wavves wrote:



They can't though. They're lacking basic necessities let alone weapons to take on the whole of ISIS and other powers. It's not 'unwilling' to defend itself, it can't. At least have sympathy for women and children who haven't done anything wrong and still are being murdered via attacks/chemical weapons. If another Western county was overthrown with ISIS killing citizens, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to run away but because it's a Middle-Eastern county no one cares.





Even if some of the attackers were refugees (which I doubt) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512 this source shows they were French Nationals.
That is only a minority, and cannot speak for the entirety of the refugees
You're right I'm not certain that they don't want to kill us, but neither are you. However, most of them want to run away from conflict and not cause it, their aim is to achieve protection.
They can't achieve safety themselves. Firstly they have no food, homes etc let alone weapons. You're basically saying that the Syrian citizens should take on ISIS when not even the Western powers can't manage that. Clearly you're not susceptible to take in the other side's point of view.
It seems like you're only soaking in the media's words, believing everything they say. It's strange how the media only highlights the Paris attack but not the fact that days after France bombed Syria killing citizens.


Let's get one thing straight the Western Powers are more then capable of wiping ISIS off the map. It's only the various world governments stopping the military from using it's full power against the camel jockeys. As for weapons and training if they wanted some all they have to do is ask. I am sure even the most leftist of people would have no objections in arming and training the Syrians to do their own fighting. After all give a man fish he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish he's fed for life.

And why should I have sympathy for the women, they are just as capable as the men at fighting. As for the children I agree they should be sent out of the direct conflict but their parents shouldn't get off scot free from their duty to their countrymen to make their country a better -place.
18794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 11/18/15

Ranwolf wrote:


wavves wrote:



They can't though. They're lacking basic necessities let alone weapons to take on the whole of ISIS and other powers. It's not 'unwilling' to defend itself, it can't. At least have sympathy for women and children who haven't done anything wrong and still are being murdered via attacks/chemical weapons. If another Western county was overthrown with ISIS killing citizens, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to run away but because it's a Middle-Eastern county no one cares.





Even if some of the attackers were refugees (which I doubt) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512 this source shows they were French Nationals.
That is only a minority, and cannot speak for the entirety of the refugees
You're right I'm not certain that they don't want to kill us, but neither are you. However, most of them want to run away from conflict and not cause it, their aim is to achieve protection.
They can't achieve safety themselves. Firstly they have no food, homes etc let alone weapons. You're basically saying that the Syrian citizens should take on ISIS when not even the Western powers can't manage that. Clearly you're not susceptible to take in the other side's point of view.
It seems like you're only soaking in the media's words, believing everything they say. It's strange how the media only highlights the Paris attack but not the fact that days after France bombed Syria killing citizens.


Let's get one thing straight the Western Powers are more then capable of wiping ISIS off the map. It's only the various world governments stopping the military from using it's full power against the camel jockeys. As for weapons and training if they wanted some all they have to do is ask. I am sure even the most leftist of people would have no objections in arming and training the Syrians to do their own fighting. After all give a man fish he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish he's fed for life.

And why should I have sympathy for the women, they are just as capable as the men at fighting. As for the children I agree they should be sent out of the direct conflict but their parents shouldn't get off scot free from their duty to their countrymen to make their country a better -place.


so you are saying, that the mother/father of a small child should fight while their child is taken away to somewhere else without them? way to break up families even more
926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F / Murica
Offline
Posted 11/18/15
Please no.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/18/15

redokami wrote:



so you are saying, that the mother/father of a small child should fight while their child is taken away to somewhere else without them? way to break up families even more


So let's me get this straight just because they are Syrians means that the fact they have to leave their families behind to fight is a bad thing. And the fact the soldiers of First World nations have to do the same when they go to Syria to fight is okay, hey as long as it isn't the big bad Western powers expecting Syria to do the same thing it's own citizens do it's a good thing.
3510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/18/15


No they would not. Back in 2013 the UK and USA stopped non lethal supplies (food,medicine etc) into the country as they feared it would fall into the wrong hands. If they're unwilling to provide supplies such as food and water, why would they send in weapons? It's highly likely it could fall into ISIS hands. The truth is the Western powers don't seem to do much, expect dropping the occasional bomb which actually kills far more civilians than ISIS members.
20228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 11/18/15
Well Australia just let the first lot of 12,000 refuges into Australia , as cruel as that sounds I'm not liking it , all the stuff about Isis and the fact that something like one in ten or one in five is Isis and all it takes is one member of Isis to cause havoc , but on a bright side new south whales ( in Australia ) has just passed a new law , if there is a hostage situation involving terrorists , there is to be no negotiating , the police are told shoot first and interrogate latter , which people or going to complain about but they have the chance to save lives instead of waiting for the first shot. And as for your question op , I think they shouldn't let them in this is going to become world war three . And America is willingly letting hundreds of Trojan horses into the country
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/19/15
No. That's no better than someone coming over illegally. They bring no benefits to our country. You want in? Do it the right way. Become a citizen.

Screw the morals and ethics of the situation. We've seen what happens when other countries allow this shit.
Sogno- 
45762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/19/15
i honestly have no idea but

our state governor, who was open to accepting refugees, has now taken back that statement after recent events. so... i just don't know
7469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/18/15

Ranwolf wrote:


redokami wrote:



so you are saying, that the mother/father of a small child should fight while their child is taken away to somewhere else without them? way to break up families even more


So let's me get this straight just because they are Syrians means that the fact they have to leave their families behind to fight is a bad thing. And the fact the soldiers of First World nations have to do the same when they go to Syria to fight is okay, hey as long as it isn't the big bad Western powers expecting Syria to do the same thing it's own citizens do it's a good thing.


Isn't there a difference between soldiers and civilians? Those soldiers are trained to fight and chose that kind of job. The local population neither has the training nor the weapons to stand up against extremists. If anything, then the local government and army have a duty to get rid of those terrorists but unfortunately a country in the state of civil war does not have such functioning institutions.

Furthermore your posts seem to lack a bit empathy for the country and people. One shouldn't forget that misguided western politics are responsible for a big part of the current trouble.
Posted 11/18/15
No we shouldn't bring them to America. It's not the the obligation of the US to help every country in need.
18794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 11/18/15

Midnightspell wrote:

Well Australia just let the first lot of 12,000 refuges into Australia , as cruel as that sounds I'm not liking it , all the stuff about Isis and the fact that something like one in ten or one in five is Isis and all it takes is one member of Isis to cause havoc , but on a bright side new south whales ( in Australia ) has just passed a new law , if there is a hostage situation involving terrorists , there is to be no negotiating , the police are told shoot first and interrogate latter , which people or going to complain about but they have the chance to save lives instead of waiting for the first shot. And as for your question op , I think they shouldn't let them in this is going to become world war three . And America is willingly letting hundreds of Trojan horses into the country

a Trojan horse, perfect way to describe this
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/18/15

wavves wrote:



No they would not. Back in 2013 the UK and USA stopped non lethal supplies (food,medicine etc) into the country as they feared it would fall into the wrong hands. If they're unwilling to provide supplies such as food and water, why would they send in weapons? It's highly likely it could fall into ISIS hands. The truth is the Western powers don't seem to do much, expect dropping the occasional bomb which actually kills far more civilians than ISIS members.


Again we come to the problem of blaming the military for the government's mistakes. The Governments you and the masses put into power. Every time the military asks for expansion of it's combat role, the civilian powers that be always shut it down, citing expenses and humanity b.s If the masses object so strongly to how the war against terror is being fought maybe give the military free reign on how to fight. Your modern day soldier is a highly trained and well equipped person more then capable of doing the job if the civilian powers would just let them. As for killing civilians my time in Afghanistan taught me that your average camel jockey is quite good at burying the AK he was using not five minutes ago and pretending to be a civilian when the battle starts going south for them. Problem is they never ditch the knife and ammo for some reason.

ISIS isn't going to stop just because we take in a horde of refugees. What we need to do is educate the locals on how to fight, give them the tools they need. We have to make them self-sufficient and then look into our own backyards to see the mistakes we made to get ourselves to this point. That isn't going to get done by wearing our hearts on our sleeves, only through discipline, commitment, courage, and self-sacrifice is Syria going to be rid of ISIS. And by telling the civilian powers to grant the soldiers,airmen,seamen the powers needed to do their job.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/18/15 , edited 11/18/15

Saezurigai wrote:


Isn't there a difference between soldiers and civilians? Those soldiers are trained to fight and chose that kind of job. The local population neither has the training nor the weapons to stand up against extremists. If anything, then the local government and army have a duty to get rid of those terrorists but unfortunately a country in the state of civil war does not have such functioning institutions.

Furthermore your posts seem to lack a bit empathy for the country and people. One shouldn't forget that misguided western politics are responsible for a big part of the current trouble.


No there really isn't a difference between a soldier a civilian. When I was teenager I was just a cadet with a gold star with a marksmanship course under my belt. When I was 18 I joined the army and did my training . I then went to Afghanistan and came back a soldier. That's all the barrier between a soldier and a civilian. Training,experience, and willingness to do what has to be done. And that's all it takes to turn these cowards into productive members of the country. And of course I lack empathy for Syria and it's people, whatever blame we may or may not carry it's not our job to hold their hands and tell them everything is going to be all right. It's our job to fight the enemy, ISIS in this case, teach the locals how to be soldiers, then repeat as necessary. As for choosing the life of a soldier, when your country is burning it isn't a choice but a duty you can only turn from at the cost of everything that makes a person a person.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.